bulk_email

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

Annotations supply only openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden for a side-effecting send operation. It usefully discloses that dry_run is TRUE by default and what the preview returns (recipients and subjects), which is critical safety context. It does not say what happens on real send (irreversible, per-recipient failures, rate limits, whether sending is batched or partial) — significant gaps for an outbound-email tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the bulk-send purpose comes first and the safety-relevant dry_run behavior is front-loaded second. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a 5-parameter, side-effecting bulk send with no output schema, the definition is only adequate: it covers purpose and preview behavior but omits failure handling, send-confirmation semantics (e.g. that dry_run must be set false to actually send), and prerequisites. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about the real-send path.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented, including the q/ids alternative and the type enum. The description still adds real meaning by explaining what dry_run actually produces ('mostra destinatari e oggetti'), which the bare boolean default in the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Invia per email molti documenti') plus the key scoping rule that each document goes to its own client with default texts. 'Molti' implicitly contrasts with the single-document sibling email_document, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 bulk-vs-single distinction is implied by 'molti' but never made explicit against email_document or email_document's per-document variant. There is no statement of prerequisites (configured sender/SMTP, verified addresses) or of when not to use it. The dry_run default note is the one concrete piece of usage guidance.

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