chaprola_email_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: 'Subject to content moderation.' However, it omits other potentially relevant traits such as authentication requirements, possible delivery delays, or failure modes, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and the content moderation note is efficiently integrated.

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 simple email-sending tool, the description covers the core purpose and a notable constraint (content moderation). The rich parameter schema completes the parameter context. Omitted details like authentication prerequisites or return behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity, so the description is largely complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal parameter context by specifying the sender domain, but this is also implied by the schema's 'from' local part description. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 a specific action ('Send an email') and a specific resource ('from your @chaprola.org address'). It uniquely distinguishes this from sibling email tools (chaprola_email_inbox, chaprola_email_read, chaprola_email_delete) and all other non-email tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action of sending an email is unambiguous and usage is implied by the verb. No exclusionary conditions or alternatives are mentioned, which is a slight gap.

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