Email a customer statement from KikoBooks to the customer, showing the recipient and requiring confirmation before sending.
Send a customer statement to the customer (email). Show the recipient to the user and confirm before sending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Statement ID to send | |
| deliveryMethod | No | Delivery method (e.g. Email) | |
| recipientEmail | No | Override recipient email address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that an outbound email is sent and that confirmation is required first, which is valuable for a side-effecting tool, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether a sent statement can be recalled or resent, or what state change occurs on the statement record.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and target are front-loaded before the safety instruction. Nothing repeats the tool name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, channel, and the required human confirmation step. It is close to complete, with only return/error outcome behavior left unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only hints at the 'recipient' concept (mapping loosely to recipientEmail) and adds no syntax or override semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (send) against a specific resource (customer statement), names the audience and the channel (the customer, email). This verb distinguishes it from the sibling get_statement, search_statements, and delete_statement without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an operational precondition (show recipient, confirm before sending) which implies the tool should be followed by human approval, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like delete_statement or get_statement, nor any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.