send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions sending emails with various features, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, error handling, confirmation of sending, or what happens if attachments fail. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features without unnecessary elaboration. Every element serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidance relative to siblings, and details on what happens after sending. The schema handles parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions TO/CC/BCC recipients, HTML/text content, attachments, and importance levels, which aligns with parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific action ('send an email'), the platform ('via Outlook'), and key capabilities (TO/CC/BCC, HTML/text content, attachments, importance levels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_draft_email' and 'send_draft_email' by specifying direct sending functionality.

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 like 'create_draft_email' or 'send_draft_email', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It simply lists features without contextual application advice.

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