Send Checklist (Inspection) Email

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral details: non-idempotence ('calling it again sends another copy'), error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the dependency on existing parent records. It also explains the defaulting behavior for project_id, providing context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then covering prerequisites, behavioral warnings, error handling, required parameters, and API reference in a logical order. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id resolution, default behavior, non-idempotence, and error handling thoroughly. However, it only vaguely mentions 'returns a confirmation' and does not clarify optional parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if body/subject are omitted), leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for key parameters: `id` must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool, and `project_id` can default from procore_set_config. It does not add detail for optional body/subject/distribution parameters, but they are already described in 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 states 'Send an email for a Checklist (Inspection) in a Project,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling email tools like send_punch_item_email and send_email_project by naming the exact resource type and including the endpoint POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/lists/{id}/send_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 provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to resolve `id` with the matching list tool first, notes that `project_id` defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and warns that calling again sends another copy. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools to use for other email types or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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