Email registered participants

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) with side effects (openWorldHint true). The description adds context by specifying the required confirm_send_email flag and the underlying RPC method. However, it does not discuss idempotency or behavior if participants already received the email, which is relevant given idempotentHint false.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and requirement, then providing background. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential action, required confirmation, and authentication. It does not describe return values or potential errors, but the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals) may compensate. The openWorldHint is addressed by noting emails are sent.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces the confirm_send_email constraint but does not add further meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate documentation.

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 purpose: 'Send registration emails to survey participants.' The verb 'send' and resource 'registration emails' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from sibling tools like limesurvey_invite_participants and limesurvey_remind_participants by focusing on 'registration' emails.

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 mentions the required confirmation parameter and authentication approach, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the use case for registration emails but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or comparisons to invite/remind tools.

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