queue_outreach

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a side effect (a Telegram approval message with Send/Skip buttons) but omits whether the email is sent immediately, what Send/Skip actually triggers, permission/auth requirements, or any rate limits.

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?

A single terse clause with no filler, front-loading the action and the resulting UI. It is efficient though cryptic in its jargon.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unstated: no usage context, no parameter meaning, and no behavioral detail beyond the Telegram buttons.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'angle' is faintly implied by 'Merchant/MCP'; 'email' and 'company' (both required) receive no explanation of expected format or role.

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?

The verb 'Queue' and resource 'outreach draft' are identifiable, and the Telegram Send/Skip delivery is mentioned. However, 'Merchant/MCP' is unexplained jargon and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like draft_proposal, list_outreach, or capture_lead, which also touch outreach.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it should call this after identifying a lead, but nothing in the text says so.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.