Send Email

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that calling again sends another copy (non-idempotent), returns a confirmation, and provides error payload details with specific HTTP status meanings. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint=false) without contradiction and adds valuable context about permissions and session expiry.

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 moderately sized but every sentence contributes value: purpose, defaults, resolution guidance, behavior, error handling, required params, and API context. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. Slightly verbose due to endpoint details, but not wasteful.

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 should explain the return value more thoroughly. It only says 'returns a confirmation' without specifying the shape or contents. It covers required parameters, defaults, and error cases well, but the response structure is a notable gap for a tool that dispatches a message and returns a confirmation.

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 already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that project_id defaults to a config value, id must reference an existing parent record (with a resolution strategy), and lists required parameters. This additional guidance enhances parameter understanding.

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's function: 'Sends an email with an associated Drawing Revision.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from other email-related tools like send_punch_item_email or send_email_for_file_sharing. The endpoint and API reference further reinforce the precise 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 provides clear usage context: it instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, explains project_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, and details common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) to aid troubleshooting. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it gives actionable prerequisites and error-handling guidance.

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