Create Email

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate non-idempotent and open world), the description adds that the tool 'Dispatches the message and returns a confirmation' and warns that 'Repeated calls may resend.' This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 a clear structure: purpose, usage, parameters, API reference. It avoids unnecessary words, though minor grammar issues ('a email') and repetitive phrasing ('Emails') prevent a perfect score.

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 covers the basic flow and required parameters but lacks details on the email object structure (nested object) and the format of the confirmation response. Given no output schema, more guidance would improve completeness.

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, so the description only lists the required parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 action ('Creates a email on a given communication') and the resource ('Emails in Procore'). It includes specific details like dispatching the message and listing required parameters, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Emails in Procore,' which provides a clear usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from sibling tools like create_communication_tag or create_company_level_email, leaving some ambiguity in decision-making.

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