send_email

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that 'password' is required when password protection is enabled, which is helpful. However, it omits key details: whether sending is immediate, if success/error feedback is provided, or if the email is saved to a sent folder. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.

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 concise with a clear first sentence followed by parameter explanations. However, it lacks structure (e.g., grouping required vs optional) and fails to mention the required 'subject' parameter, making it less efficient than it could be.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (even though there's no output schema, a description of expected outcome would help), ignores the required 'subject' and optional 'account' parameters, and provides no context on authentication or error handling.

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 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It covers 'to', 'cc', 'bcc', 'attachments', 'sender', 'body_text', 'body_html', and 'password', but critically omits the required 'subject' parameter and the optional 'account' parameter. This incomplete coverage undermines the tool's usability.

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 clearly states the verb-resource combo 'Send a new email,' which distinguishes it from actions like creating drafts or replying. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'send_draft' (which sends an existing draft), though the phrasing 'new email' implies composing from scratch.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_draft' or 'forward_message.' The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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