Send contribution receipt

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool sends an email (side effect) and requires a write-allowed env variable. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behaviors, or what happens on duplicate sends, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action, second adds a key prerequisite. No wasted words or repetition, efficiently conveying essential information.

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?

For a simple action tool without output schema, the description covers purpose and a critical requirement. It could mention success/failure indications, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds overall purpose but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Send (or re-send)' and the resource 'standard receipt email for a contribution'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like civicrm_get_contributions or civicrm_record_contribution by focusing on the specific action of sending a receipt.

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 context that the tool triggers an outbound email and requires CIVICRM_ALLOW_WRITES=true. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling list contains no other receipt-sending tool, making usage straightforward.

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