pennylane_send_quote_by_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write with external side effects. The description adds the recipient-selection behavior, but nothing about confirmation prompts, duplicate-send risk, or what happens after sending; with annotations covering the safety profile this lands at a baseline 3.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter action tool, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage context.

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 explained, and both parameters are documented. However, for a non-idempotent, externally-visible send operation, the description leaves prerequisites and post-send behavior unstated, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100% — both 'id' (quote identifier) and 'recipients' (fallback to client emails when empty) are fully documented in the schema. The description only paraphrases the recipients fallback, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (envoie) and resource (un devis) plus the medium (par email), so an agent immediately knows this triggers a quote email rather than a CRUD operation on quotes. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pennylane_get_quote or pennylane_update_quote_status, but the action is unambiguous.

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 says what gets sent and to whom, but gives no when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. quote must be finalized first), and does not name any alternative. All routing context is left to inference from the tool name.

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