Send Student Email

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it omits that sending mail is an irreversible external side effect, gives no error/failure behavior, no rate limits, and no indication of what happens if the UČO or attachment_path cannot be resolved. It does add one useful behavioral detail — that the message is sent from the student's university account via /auth/mail/ with optional attachments — but that is thin for a write action with an external recipient.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; the '/auth/mail/' path snippet is the only slightly cryptic element. Nothing is redundant, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 6-parameter, irreversible outbound-send tool with zero annotations, the definition should at minimum state the authentication prerequisite and the one-way nature of sending. Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the omission of prerequisites and side-effect semantics leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so every parameter including cc, bcc and attachment_path is already documented in the schema; the description only echoes 'optional attachments'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond it.

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 verb pair ('Compose and send') and resource ('an email') plus the originating account ('student's university account'), so the agent can tell it apart from read-only siblings such as get_student_emails and read_email_message. It does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an authenticated session (despite check_auth_status and set_session_cookies existing as siblings), and no note on what to do if the send fails. The only implied guidance is the obvious fact that this is the outbound counterpart to the read-email tools.

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