send_quote_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a quote is sent via email, but does not mention whether this marks the quote as sent, requires a client email address, has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is fairly simple, and the schema covers parameter details, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about post-send behavior (e.g., status change, confirmation). It lacks information about prerequisites or expected outcomes, making it only minimally complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('a quote') and the medium ('via email'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_invoice_email by specifying the document type being sent.

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 description implies the tool is used to email a quote to a client, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it compared to related tools like convert_quote_to_invoice or send_invoice_email. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so the usage context is only implied.

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