Send a new message. Priority is normal or urgent; urgent may steer an active Codex turn.
Send a new message. Priority is normal or urgent; urgent may steer an active Codex turn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| priority | No | normal | |
| references | No | ||
| attachments | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / properties / priorityAdded value: +{
+ "default": "normal",
+ "title": "Priority",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral nuance: urgent priority may steer an active Codex turn. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects beyond sending, or any constraints relevant to a mutating operation.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the only additional sentence adds a meaningful behavioral detail about priority. Every word earns its place.
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 annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and ambiguity between siblings like iam_reply and iam_chat_post, this short description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in all intended contexts. The output schema covers return values, but important usage and parameter context is missing.
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 only adds meaning for `priority` by defining its allowed values and behavioral effect. The other six parameters (`to`, `subject`, `body`, `cc`, `references`, `attachments`) receive no additional semantic guidance beyond their property names.
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 states a specific action ('Send a new message') with a clear resource and purpose. It is concise and generally distinguishable from siblings like iam_reply, though it does not explicitly clarify that this is an email/message send rather than a chat post, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iam_reply or iam_chat_post. The description focuses only on the action and priority, not on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.