Create Email Communication

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

Beyond annotations (which already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent), the description details that each call creates a new record, returns the created communication with its id, and describes common error statuses. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations don't provide.

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 and front-loaded, covering purpose, defaults, idempotency, return value, errors, required parameters, and API reference in about 90 words. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 has five required parameters including two nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the primary behaviors: creation, non-idempotency, return value, error handling, and configuration default. It lacks details on the internal structure of the communication and email objects, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and call the 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?

The input schema fully documents all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added parameter semantic is that project_id defaults to the configured value; it does not elaborate on the structure of the nested communication and email objects, so it doesn't significantly exceed the baseline.

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 tool creates an email communication on a given project, with specific details like HTTP 201 and the endpoint. This distinguishes it from related siblings like company-level email communication creation and standalone email creation by emphasizing project scope and the 'email_communications' resource.

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 notes that project_id defaults to a configured value and lists required parameters, giving context for invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_company_level_email_communication or create_email, nor does it mention exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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