Send Email For File Sharing

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'calling it again sends another copy' (reinforcing non-idempotency) and 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' This provides valuable error-handling and side-effect 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 efficient, covering purpose, defaults, prerequisites, side effects, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint in a compact paragraph. Every sentence provides actionable information; there is no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, defaults, repeat behavior, and error responses. It does not detail the exact confirmation format, but it states 'returns a confirmation' and explains the error payload. For a 7-parameter tool with robust schema descriptions, this is a complete enough description for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema describes each parameter (e.g., 'URL path parameter — unique identifier of the Documents resource'). The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. These details help correct parameter usage without repeating 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 'Creates an new email for the specified Procore company' and 'Dispatches the message', with an endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/files/{id}/send_email' that precisely identifies the file-sharing email action. It distinguishes from sibling email tools by specifying the file-sharing context and the endpoint structure.

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 explains that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the prerequisite and scope give sufficient guidance for when to invoke this tool.

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