Send EVE mail

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

Annotations only say openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the crucial nuance that this dispatches a real, externally-visible message to other players and must be user-confirmed. It stops short of saying whether a sent mail can be recalled or what happens on an invalid recipient.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the core action comes first and the safety caution is front-loaded as a closing imperative rather than buried.

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 real-world-effect tool with no output schema and no annotations covering irreversibility, the description covers the essential behavioral risk and recipient semantics. It omits failure modes (invalid recipient, rate limiting) but is sufficient to call 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 75%, and the description compensates on the weakest field by explaining that recipients are character, corporation, alliance, or mailing-list names rather than raw IDs. The `character` parameter is left to the schema, which already documents its default.

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 ('Sends an in-game EVE mail from the character') and immediately disambiguates the recipient field semantics, distinguishing it clearly from read-side siblings like mail_list and mail_read.

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 an explicit precondition for use: 'always confirm recipients, subject and body with the user first.' It does not name alternatives, but the send-vs-read/list distinction is unambiguous from the purpose statement.

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