snd

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description reinforces this with "Envia de verdade", making clear the side effect is real and externally visible rather than a staging action. "Pede confirmação" adds genuine behavioral context — a confirmation gate — that the annotations do not convey. It does not explain what happens if confirmation is absent or rejected, keeping it below 5.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the two modes and their selecting parameters, the second front-loads the irreversibility and confirmation requirement. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 destructive, externally-visible send tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the definition omits how the confirmation flow actually works (that cf must come from a first call), says nothing about cc, and gives no indication of what a successful send returns. The essentials for choosing the tool are present, but the mechanics of the guarded write are under-described.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning by explaining the mutual exclusivity of alvo versus para/assunto/corpo, which the schema itself does not state. It leaves cc entirely unmentioned and does not explain the confirmation code cf, though the schema does describe cf. Net positive over the schema baseline.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ("Envia um email novo" / "envia um rascunho existente") and distinguishes its two operating modes via the parameter sets that select them. The cryptic tool name "snd" is fully resolved by the text. It stops short of naming a sibling, but none of the listed siblings (ls, find, rd, att...) appears to be a competing send operation.

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 clear mode-selection guidance: use para/assunto/corpo for a new message, or alvo to send an existing draft. The phrase "pede confirmação" signals a confirmation step before the send occurs. It offers no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. auth or quota conditions), so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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