ghl_send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and fails to mention any side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. The description adds no context beyond the basic 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 short but under-specified. While it wastes no words, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters and 4 required fields. It fails to convey essential usage context that a few additional sentences could provide.

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 (10 params, 4 required, 50% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any operational context, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description does not address any parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. With only 50% schema coverage (5 of 10 params documented), the description should compensate for gaps like cc, bcc, subject, fromName, and conversationId, but it does not.

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 action ('Send an email') and the resource ('within an existing conversation'). It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_send_message by specifying email rather than a generic message, though it does not explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_send_message or ghl_add_inbound_message. There is no mention of prerequisites like the conversation needing to exist.

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