emails_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it sends emails or just stores records), error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the rich input structure, expected outcomes, or behavioral traits needed for effective use. For a creation tool with such schema depth, more context is required.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'email record' but doesn't explain the two main parameters (properties and associations) or their sub-fields (e.g., subject, status, recipients). This leaves critical input semantics unclear, failing to add value beyond the bare 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 'Create a new email record' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('email record'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like emails_batch_create, which creates multiple email records, or emails_update, which modifies existing records, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required fields), compare it to batch operations (emails_batch_create) or update operations (emails_update), or specify use cases (e.g., for single email creation). This lack of context could lead to misuse.

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