send_document

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive, but no idempotence. The description adds that the action involves sending an email, which is a side effect. However, it does not disclose whether the document is modified, what permissions are needed, or if sending can be repeated safely. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and target.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter intent. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or post-send state. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the emails parameter is optional and defaults to the partner's email address when empty. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'invoice' (or document) via email, distinguishing between sending to the partner's default email or to specified addresses. This specificity helps differentiate from sibling tools like download_document or create_document.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., document existence, partner email configuration) or when not to use it (e.g., for downloading). The sibling list includes many document actions, but the description fails to help an agent decide.

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