send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does mention one permanent side effect (filing into Sent), but it does not state that sending is irreversible, delivers externally to recipients, may be subject to account/rate limits, or what happens on failure. For an external side-effectful action this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the Sent-filing detail is useful extra context. 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?

The input schema supplies required/optional fields and defaults, and an output schema exists, so return value documentation isn't the description's responsibility. Still, with zero annotations and no guidance about alternatives or the 'account' parameter, the overall definition is only minimally complete for an action with real-world delivery consequences.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'new email.' The property names (to, cc, bcc, subject, body, html, account) are mostly self-explanatory, but ambiguous ones such as html and account are left undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Send a new email') and the resource route ('through Bridge'), plus a distinctive side effect ('Bridge files it into Sent'). It implies a new message rather than a reply, forward, or draft, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it contrasts with.

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 word 'new' implies that send_email is for creating an outbound message, as opposed to reply_email, forward_email, or save_draft. However, the description never states these alternatives or gives explicit conditions for choosing this tool, leaving the routing largely to inference.

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