emails_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new email record' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what 'create' entails—whether it sends an email, saves a draft, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. No structural issues are present.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or output, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description, which it doesn't meet.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameter meanings are undocumented in the schema. The description 'Create a new email record' adds no information about the 2 parameters (properties and associations) or their nested structures (e.g., what properties like hs_email_subject represent, how associations work). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like emails_batch_create, emails_update, or other creation tools in the system (e.g., calls_create, notes_create), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like emails_batch_create (for batch operations) and emails_update (for modifications), the agent receives no indication of whether this is for single-record creation, when batch operations might be preferred, or any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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