Create Company-Level Email

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds value by confirming the action dispatches the message (side effect) and warns that repeated calls may resend, which explains the non-idempotent behavior beyond the 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 concise with two sentences plus a list of required parameters and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main action, side effects, and endpoint. It does not detail return values or optional parameter usage, but the schema covers parameter descriptions adequately. Minor gaps in completeness for a creation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates an email on an existing company-level communication and dispatches it. It distinguishes from 'create_company_level_email_communication' by specifying it operates on a given communication, but does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'create_email'.

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 invites use ('Use this to create a new Emails') and lists required parameters, but provides no guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use. The warning about repeated calls resending is beneficial but doesn't fully replace explicit usage context.

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