proton_send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful context: plain-text only (no HTML/attachments implied) and the dependency on Proton Mail Bridge running locally. It omits auth/connection requirements, failure behavior, and — critically — says nothing about how message content is supplied despite a 0-parameter schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause is informative (verb, medium, channel, local dependency). It is tight, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized for a send operation.

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 send tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers the channel and the plain-text constraint but leaves the biggest questions unanswered: how the message content is passed, whether sending is confirmed, and how it relates to the other email-sending siblings.

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?

Parameter count is 0, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, though it also does not explain how recipient/subject/body are conveyed, which is a latent ambiguity given the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb (sends) plus resource (plain-text message) plus channel scope (a connected Proton Mail address, via Proton Mail Bridge). The Proton-specific channel distinguishes it in practice from m365_send_email / outlook_send_email / thunderbird_send_email, but the description never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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?

It implies a prerequisite (a connected Proton address, Bridge running on this computer) but gives no when-to-use / when-not, and no routing guidance against the many other send-email siblings. An agent gets a precondition hint but no selection criteria.

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