send_email

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side-effecting send behavior, the connected Gmail account, the lack of logging, and the returned identifier. It does not mention auth prerequisites or possible delivery failures, but the core behavioral contract is well covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and important distinction, restates the logging trade-off, gives the return value, and points to the sibling tool for an alternative use case.

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?

This is a side-effecting email tool with no output schema, and the description covers the essential output identifiers. It is somewhat limited by the lack of parameter semantics, but for an otherwise standard 6-parameter email call, the situational context is easy for an agent to grasp.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. While names like to, cc, and bcc are conventional, the description does not clarify inReplyTo usage, message body formatting, or how the parameters relate to the Gmail API request.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Sends an email via the connected Gmail account', and immediately distinguishes itself from send_email_and_record with the 'without recording an outreach log' trait. It also states the return value, which further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

It gives explicit alternatives and exclusions: 'For prospect outreach use send_email_and_record instead.' This tells an agent exactly when not to use the tool and names the preferred sibling, which is strong usage guidance.

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