send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions supported formats and features. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., delivery guarantees), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes key differentiators. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 of 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or constraints (e.g., maximum recipients). The presence of nested objects (templateParams) is unaddressed. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by summarizing capabilities (plain text, HTML, CC/BCC, templates) but does not explain when to use templateId versus body, or how templateParams interact. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 email), the service (Convertway), and lists supported features (plain text, HTML, CC/BCC, templates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_whatsapp and send_sms by specifying the email channel.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are for different channels, the description does not mention any prerequisites, limits, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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