marketo_send_sample

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

Discloses that token rendering is optional using a lead ID. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention whether the action is destructive, if it modifies any state, or what the response includes. The 'sample/test' label implies non-destructive but is not confirmed.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering the action, optional feature, and use case. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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?

Lacks information about return values or errors, especially since no output schema exists. The description could hint at outcome confirmation. However, the core functionality is covered adequately for a simple send action.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action (send a sample/test email) and the optional ability to render tokens. Distinct from sibling tools which are mostly get/clone operations. The QA use case is explicitly mentioned, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly identifies the tool as useful for QA before approving. While it doesn't state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is sufficient given no other sample send tool exists among siblings.

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