Send Punch Item Email

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating that calling again sends another copy (reinforcing non-idempotency) and by detailing failure modes (401, 403, 404) and the confirmation return. This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then prerequisites, behavior, errors, and API context. It is slightly verbose but every sentence carries information; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required parameters, prerequisite action (list tool), non-idempotent behavior, confirmation return, and common error scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not elaborate on the body/distribution parameters.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds semantic meaning for the required id parameter, explaining it must identify an existing parent record and to resolve it first. This goes beyond the schema's basic field description.

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 states a specific action ('Send an email for a Punch Item in a Project') with a clear resource and endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_unsent_punch_items or send_email_project, but the unique verb+resource combination is 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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool: the id must reference an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool first. It also mentions required parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so no exclusions are given.

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