Compose a Setell quote email

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the token's binding to the quote version and recipient, its single-use and expiration properties, and the plan-gated quota impact. It also implicitly indicates mutation (composing is a write) consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently lists return fields, provides workflow guidance, and includes crucial behavioral constraints without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (token-based workflow, quota, binding constraints) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: returns, token lifecycle, approval requirement, and plan-gating. The agent has enough information to use the tool correctly and understand its effects.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema descriptions. For 'tone', it explains that the brand voice comes from UserSettings and tone controls cadence. For 'recipientEmail', it warns that a mismatch with 'setell_send_quote' invalidates the token. For 'customInstructions', it clarifies the 1000-char limit as a one-paragraph instruction.

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 dual purpose: drafting an AI-generated quote email in the operator's brand voice and minting a single-use confirmation token bound to the specific quote version and recipient. It lists the return fields and is easily distinguishable from its sibling 'setell_send_quote', which uses the token to send.

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 provides explicit workflow instructions: narrate the preview to the operator, obtain their approval, then call 'setell_send_quote' with the provided token verbatim. It also specifies when not to reuse the token, stating that any revision or recipient change requires re-composing, and notes the token's 15-minute expiration and single-use nature.

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