business_write_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 reveals that the tool drafts a preview scoped to a Project ref; it does not explain whether sending is possible, whether side effects occur, how tone/intent/context are used, or what the output structure looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, for a 9-parameter tool it is under-specified; the brevity is closer to under-documentation than to efficient completeness.

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?

The description is far too thin for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance. The output schema may describe return values, but the agent still lacks essential invocation context such as whether send=true actually sends, how preview_only behaves, what project_ref must look like, and how tone/intent/context influence the draft.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the 9 undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning only for project_ref via 'one exact Project ref', and for preview by implication. The fields send, preview_only, tone, intent, context, to, subject, and body are left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action, 'Draft an email preview', and a clear scope, 'under one exact Project ref'. It distinguishes the tool from send-oriented siblings like gmail_send_email or microsoft_send_email. However, it does not fully clarify the role of the send and preview_only fields, and the phrasing is awkward.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gmail_send_email, microsoft_send_email, or business_draft_contract. It implies a preview-only workflow, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are stated.

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