send_email

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it is a POST request. It does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, authentication needs, or response behavior. With annotations present, the description should enrich the safety profile but adds nothing.

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 brief (a single endpoint string), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 12 parameters, the one-liner does not earn its place by conveying useful meaning; it simply restates a technical detail.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is grossly inadequate. It omits any context about return values, side effects, prerequisites, or use cases, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 schema covers 58% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description itself contains zero parameter information. It does not help clarify undocumented params like track_open, x_track_id, track_click, track_domain, or check_local_stop_list. Given the moderate schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 is merely 'POST /api/v1/smtp_send' – an HTTP method and endpoint – with no statement of what the tool actually does. The tool name 'send_email' hints at the purpose, but the description itself provides no verb or resource definition. This is clearer than a pure tautology but still fails to explicitly state the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like send_mail_v2 or send_package. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for selection, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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