emails_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new email record' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it sends emails or just stores records, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output expectations, making it inadequate for guiding an agent in correct tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters, while the input schema has 2 parameters (properties and associations) with complex nested structures. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what properties or associations entail, resulting in inadequate parameter documentation.

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 'Create a new email record' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('email record'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like emails_batch_create or emails_update, which would require mentioning it's for single email creation versus batch operations or updates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like emails_batch_create (for batch operations) and emails_update (for modifications), the agent lacks explicit direction on choosing this tool for single email creation, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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