send_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation and side effects. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of authentication, rate limits, what gets destroyed, or the actual sending side effects. 'Python SDK parity' is not a behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence, which is under-specification for a tool with 15 parameters and nested objects. It provides an endpoint but lacks structured information like usage examples or key constraints. This is not effective conciseness but rather a lack of needed 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?

With 15 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, no output schema, and a destructive/mutating nature, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or operational semantics, making it impossible for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 only 13% (users and dry_run have descriptions); the other 13 parameters are undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter roles, required fields, or formats. This leaves the agent guessing at the meaning of parameters like track_open, is_moderate, and check_local_stop_list.

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 gives the endpoint 'POST /api/v1/add_json_package' and says 'массовая отправка' (mass sending), which clarifies that this tool sends packages in bulk. However, it does not explicitly state what a package contains (e.g., emails) or how this differs from sibling tools like send_package_xml, making the purpose somewhat vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_email, send_mail_v2, or send_package_xml. The note 'Python SDK parity' hints at compatibility but does not provide actionable usage context or exclusions.

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