appwrite_send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden but only discloses the provider requirement. It fails to explain draft vs. send behavior, scheduling mechanics (scheduled_at parameter), recipient targeting differences (topics vs. users vs. targets), or error conditions.

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 two sentences are efficient and front-loaded with no redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (12 parameters including scheduling, drafts, and multiple recipient types), the extreme brevity constitutes under-documentation rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Inadequate for a 12-parameter messaging tool with scheduling, drafting, and targeting capabilities. The description omits all parameter semantics, output expectations, and behavioral details beyond the basic action and provider prerequisite.

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 0% (no property descriptions), and the description text compensates with zero parameter details. Critical parameters like 'site' (intended project/site context), 'message_id' (user-defined vs. generated), and the three distinct recipient types (topics, users, targets) remain completely undocumented.

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?

States specific action (Send) and resource (email message) clearly. However, it does not differentiate from siblings 'appwrite_send_push' or 'appwrite_send_sms', which are alternative messaging channels on this server.

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?

Only mentions the prerequisite of a 'configured email provider'. Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'appwrite_send_push'/'appwrite_send_sms', nor when to use draft mode or scheduling features available in the parameters.

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