Send Email For File Sharing

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Repeated calls may resend', which reinforces the non-idempotent behavior. It also mentions returning a confirmation, but does not detail side effects or auth requirements. Overall, it adds useful context 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 5 sentences and front-loaded with purpose. It includes usage, required params, and an API reference. It is relatively concise, though the last sentence about the endpoint may be redundant for an agent that already has schema context. No wasted words overall.

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 main action and mentions a confirmation return. Since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to describe the confirmation format or what happens with optional parameters. However, the schema covers parameter details, so the description is largely adequate. It lacks explanation of optional parameter interactions, but still provides a solid baseline.

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 explains all parameters. The description only mentions required parameters 'company_id' and 'id' without adding new meaning or constraints. It does not elaborate on the optional parameters like subject, body, or distribution lists, so it does not improve upon 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 the tool sends an email for file sharing, specifically for Documents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_email_project by focusing on 'file sharing' via the Documents API endpoint. The verb 'send' and resource 'email for file sharing' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a clear context ('for file sharing') and lists required parameters. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_email_project) or mention any prerequisites like permissions. The warning about repeated calls is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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