generate_negotiation_email

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

The description is minimal beyond stating the tool's purpose. Annotations provide no safety or behavioral hints, and the description does not disclose whether the email is drafted or sent, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema. The description provides the high-level purpose but lacks details on what the generated email contains, how it uses the analysisId, or what the output structure is. More context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage (tone enum, analysisId description, recipientRole description). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'generate', the resource 'negotiation email', and the purpose of explaining requested changes and rationale. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_clause or extract_clause by focusing on email generation.

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 implies the tool is used to generate a negotiation email but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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