send_email_with_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the obvious sending action. It does not mention delivery semantics, attachment handling limitations, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior, leaving the agent blind to important operational details.

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 admirably short with no filler, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful. The single clause conveys the core action but omits essential context that could have been added without much length.

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 has nine parameters, no annotations, and a close sibling named send_email, this minimal description is insufficient. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the absence of guidance on when to use this tool, how attachments should be shaped, or how this differs from the non-attachment sending tool.

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 meaning to any of the nine parameters. The description does not explain the format of attachments, the meaning of mail_format, the relationship between from_address and account_id, or the expected structure of cc_address and bcc_address, despite the schema leaving these open to interpretation.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Send email') and specifies the distinguishing feature of attachments, so an agent can infer the basic function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool send_email, leaving the agent to guess whether attachments are required or optional.

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 send_email, list_emails, or other email-related tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, fallback scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the tool name and schema to make routing decisions.

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