Mail senden

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

The annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds specific context: the email is sent via SMTP, stored in the Sent folder, and the operation is 'endgültig und nicht widerrufbar'. This goes beyond the generic destructiveHint and is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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, both essential: the first states action and outcome, the second states the critical irreversibility warning and required confirmation step. No filler or redundancy.

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 high-stakes send operation, the description covers the essential warning, the sent-folder side effect, and the SMTP mechanism. It does not mention alternatives or failure behavior, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps, making this adequate for a destructive tool.

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 does not add parameter-level semantics, but the schema already covers most parameters with descriptions (73% coverage). The mention of confirming recipients, subject, and text highlights which fields matter most, though it does not explain their formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Versendet eine E-Mail über SMTP') and the outcome ('legt sie im Gesendet-Ordner ab'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the send-vs-draft distinction is implied by the verb and resource.

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 gives clear usage context by warning that sending is final and requires user confirmation of recipients, subject, and text before invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like mail_create_draft or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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