Share Gamma via Email

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: sends email invitations, recipients receive a link, and waitForCompletion behavior (max 5 minutes). It does not cover all edge cases like invalid emails or rate limits, but adds meaningful context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and includes an example and note, but it is not fully concise: it is missing two parameters (response_format, waitForCompletion) from the parameter list, making it incomplete. It could be tighter while covering all parameters.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description is mostly complete but lacks mention of the response_format parameter (which controls output format). It also does not explain failure scenarios or retries. The return section is present but incomplete relative to schema options.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for all parameters. The description lists three parameters (generationId, emails, message) and includes an example, but omits response_format and waitForCompletion from the bullet list, though waitForCompletion is mentioned in the note. Overall, the description adds marginal value 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?

The description clearly states 'Share a generated Gamma with recipients via email.' It uses a specific verb ('share') and resource ('Gamma'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gamma_generate and gamma_archive which have different purposes.

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 instructs to ensure the generation is complete before sharing and mentions using waitForCompletion: true to handle this automatically. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, it provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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