Generate outreach email

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact those annotations do not convey: the mutation creates only a draft and nothing is transmitted. It remains silent on whether regenerating overwrites an existing draft and on any rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 zero filler, and the core action leads while the safety clarification follows immediately. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter tool this covers the action and the key safety caveat, but with no output schema the description never says what comes back or where the draft lives (returned inline, saved to materials, viewable elsewhere) or what the agent should do with it next. That retrieval gap is the missing piece.

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 both parameters are already documented as UUIDs of type contact and job; the description only restates that the draft is scoped to a contact and a job. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('personalized outreach-email draft') and scopes it to the two required inputs (contact and job), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other generation siblings in the list such as generate_pack or generate_resume, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 email is sent by this call' usefully implies this is the drafting step rather than the sending step, which nudges the agent toward it. But no alternatives are named (e.g. reply_to_recruiter for replying, generate_pack for full application packages) and no prerequisite conditions (does the contact need to exist?) are stated.

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