send_routing_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format and that the link is one-time, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates a record), idempotency, or error behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that sends communications.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose and return, followed by a brief, well-structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 adequately covers parameter usage and return values, but given the lack of annotations and output schema, it omits important context like error states, prerequisites (e.g., form must exist), and behavioral nuances (e.g., sending costs). It is sufficient for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds critical context: it explains conditional requirements for email/phone based on delivery_method, clarifies that message is optional, and enumerates delivery_method options. This goes well beyond the schema which only provides types and defaults.

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 the tool sends a routing form as a one-time link and returns {publicUrl, status}. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_routing_form or delete_routing_form, which perform different operations.

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 conditional requirements for email/phone based on delivery_method, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through parameter descriptions but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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