send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the client-approval prerequisite and the internal draft-then-send mechanism for attachments over 3MB, explicitly noting the result is identical and usage is unchanged. It does not cover failure modes or delivery guarantees, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the approval requirement, followed by the attachment constraint. No filler or redundant explanation; every clause contributes value.

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 send tool with no annotations, the description covers the most critical contextual points: client approval and attachment limits/behavior. It does not describe the return value or delivery status, but no output schema exists and this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 57%; the schema documents cc, bcc, mailbox, and attachments in detail, while to, subject, and body are left to their self-evident names. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it restates attachment limits that the schema already covers.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send an approved email.' It signals a send operation rather than a draft, which distinguishes it from sibling draft tools, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or state what it is not.

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 an important usage gate: 'Requires explicit approval from the client first.' It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly describe when to use it over alternatives like create_email_draft or reply_to_email, nor does it list exclusions.

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