Send Punch Item Email

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it returns a confirmation and that repeated calls may resend, which discloses non-idempotent behavior. This goes beyond the annotations to convey side effects. No contradiction.

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 4 sentences, each providing essential information: action, usage, behavior, and technical details. No fluff, well-structured with the primary action first.

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 mentions 'returns a confirmation' which is helpful. It specifies the API version and endpoint. Could mention error scenarios or prerequisite project context, but the schema covers parameter details. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights that 'id' is required, which adds value. It does not elaborate on other parameters, but the schema already describes them sufficiently. No additional semantics beyond the required hint.

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 action: 'Send an email for a Punch Item in a Project.' It specifies the verb 'Send', the resource 'email for a Punch Item', and distinguishes from siblings like 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails' and other punch item operations.

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 tells when to use: 'Use this to dispatch the notification or message related to Punch List records.' It warns about repeated calls potentially resending emails. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context and sibling names like 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails' imply when to use a different tool.

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