send_email_and_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses side effects (email send, outreach log) and conditional behavior based on outboundMode. It also discloses the return information (sent/drafted status, From address on send). It omits potential failure modes or authorization requirements, but for a typical send+record tool, this is adequate.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Sends... records') and then adds critical behavioral conditions (outboundMode) and return values. 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, the conditional behavior (send vs draft), and the return information (status, id, From address). It doesn't detail error cases or prerequisites (like mailbox setup), but it is sufficient for common usage. It also differentiates from siblings like send_email and record_outreach by emphasizing the combined one-call action.

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 schema covers only 2 of 5 parameters (projectId and variantId have descriptions). The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameters, but it implies prospectId is used to resolve the email address and subject/body are the email content. It adds some semantic context (e.g., 'address stored on the prospect') but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Sends a prospect email... and records the outreach log') and specifies the resource (prospect email and outreach log). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email and record_outreach by emphasizing the combined one-call behavior, and notes outboundMode conditional behavior.

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 indicates the tool is used to both send and record in one call, implying when to use it. It also mentions the outboundMode condition, which gives context on when it sends vs. drafts. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like using send_email and record_outreach separately, or mention when to choose this over other siblings like record_outreach_with_inquiry.

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