Email A Time And Material Entry

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'returns a confirmation' and warns 'Repeated calls may resend,' which clarifies non-idempotence and side effects beyond 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 supplementary information (required params, API details). Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage context, behavioral note, and parameter listing. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral note, and required parameters. It omits error conditions or authentication but is adequate given the tool's low complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description only restates the required parameters without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameters well.

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 verb 'Email' and the resource 'Time And Material Entry', specifies association with a project, and provides context about Field Productivity records. This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from other tools through naming and scope.

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 includes 'Use this to dispatch the notification or message related to Field Productivity records,' which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the narrow focus and sufficient context compensate.

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