crm_send_email

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Send email'—a side-effecting action—but gives no information about permanence, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the email is logged as an activity in the CRM. The agent cannot assess the impact or safety of the operation.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; it lacks any additional context or breakdown that would justify a higher score.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits return behavior, error cases, prerequisites, and how the email is associated with the record, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter, including required ones like module and record_id, or optional ones like mail_format and template_id. The agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names, which may be ambiguous without additional context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('a CRM record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like books_send_invoice_email or books_email_purchase_order, which target specific document types. However, it could be more precise about what 'for a CRM record' implies (e.g., logging the email to the record), making the purpose clear but not fully explicit.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the record must exist), exclusions, or alternative tools for document-specific emails. This is a bare one-liner without contextual direction.

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