Email: preview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'Nothing is saved and no email is sent.' It also discloses behavior the annotations do not: sample data is injected, and the wrapper falls back to the project's current shell when none is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the safety and usage notes come in logical order. The opening 'Render uncommitted subject + content + optional wrapper, print HTML' partially restates the following sentence, a minor 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent the tool returns HTML. It covers what is rendered, the wrapper default, sample data, and the no-save/no-send guarantee, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining wrapper resolution (draft shell if given, otherwise the project's current one) and that content is rendered with sample data, which the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: render a draft email subject, content and optional wrapper to HTML. It also distinguishes itself from the commit-oriented siblings email_templates_update and email_shell_update, so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to check edits before email_templates_update or email_shell_update.' It names the concrete alternatives and the condition that selects this tool over them, leaving nothing to inference.

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