draft_outreach

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the most consequential behavior: it never sends anything and only produces a draft for the user to handle. It also discloses missing-requirement warnings, though it does not clarify whether warnings accompany a draft, block generation, or whether any draft is persisted.

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 safety-critical purpose is front-loaded, followed by scannable parameter guidance and a concise warning behavior note. The examples and emphasis on one specific hook are practical rather than redundant, with no significant filler.

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 definition is sufficient for a basic invocation using the three required parameters and explains the central no-send safeguard. For an 11-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, annotations, or output schema, it remains incomplete because template-dependent fields, warning behavior, and the roles of several inputs are unspecified.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for template, topic, proof, and hook, including allowed template values, formats, and examples. However, schema coverage is 0%, and my_site, my_name, my_page, target_site, contact_name, broken_url, and extra receive no explanation or template-specific usage guidance.

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 opening sentence clearly states the verb and resource: drafting an outreach email for the user to edit and send. The eight template options clarify its outreach scope, although there is no explicit differentiation from the closest sibling, build_submission_kit.

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?

It gives concrete usage context, including list_inclusion for "top N companies" roundups, factual proof, and a page-specific hook to avoid mass-email wording. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over build_submission_kit or provide per-template selection and input requirements.

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