send_email

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

The description discloses one side effect (automatic movement of the sent message to 'MCP' dossier), but it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or potential side effects on the email state. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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 highly concise, consisting of two clear sentences without unnecessary elaboration. It is well-structured and directly addresses the core functionality and a key behavior, making it easy to read and understand.

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?

The description lacks essential context about the outcome of the operation, such as return values, success/failure indicators, or consequences beyond the auto-move. It also does not explain when this tool is appropriate to use. While it mentions the auto-move, it fails to provide a complete picture of the tool's behavior and results.

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 description adds almost no meaning to the parameters. It indirectly references 'fromEmailId' via 'using the selected From address' but does not explain it, nor does it clarify the purpose of fields like 'to', 'subject', 'body', 'html', 'text', 'isGhostMode', or 'isTrackingEnabled'. The only parameter mentioned is 'folder' via the auto-move statement, but the schema already describes that. Overall, the description fails to enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 primary action ('Send an email') and even specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. It also mentions the auto-move to 'MCP' dossier, which adds context. However, the phrase 'using the selected From address' is ambiguous and could be clearer, but overall the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_emails or login.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication, prior selection of a From address). It lacks any indication of appropriate contexts or conditions for invocation.

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