reply_mail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-phase process (preview, confirm, send), which is a critical behavioral trait for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention possible side effects, authentication, or response format, though the disclosed flow is valuable.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and flow. Every word adds value—there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential workflow but lacks details on return values, error handling, permissions, or prerequisites. The two-phase flow is helpful, but overall completeness is limited given the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. The schema lists body, message_id, account_id, and request_id, but the description does not explain their purpose or relationship to the flow. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not, this is a significant gap.

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 tool's function: 'Risponde a un messaggio' (replies to a message). It also introduces the two-phase workflow (preview -> confirm -> send), which is specific and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like send_mail, which creates new messages. The verb+resource is explicit.

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 implies usage for replying to existing messages, differentiating from send_mail, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The two-phase flow hints at a confirmation step, but there is no explicit 'use this when replying' guidance.

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