send_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that emails are sent through connected broker accounts, that emails can be linked to CRM objects, and that templates may contain auto-filled merge fields. This provides good insight into behavior.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is concise yet thorough, with every sentence adding value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with important notes, and the CRM linking aspect. However, since there is no output schema, it could have mentioned the return value (e.g., confirmation ID) for completeness.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how parameters relate (e.g., broker_id determines sender, snippet_id selects template), adding context about merge fields, and clarifying the CRM linking purpose.

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 'Send an email using a Propstack email template', with specific verbs and resources. It lists three concrete use cases (exposé, follow-up, confirmation/rejection) and distinguishes this tool from siblings (no other send email tool exists).

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 explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., sending exposés, follow-ups) and important prerequisites (broker_id must have connected email, snippet_id is template ID). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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