sc_mail_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the endpoint does not actually send yet, which prevents a false assumption of a side effect. However, it omits auth requirements, what the call returns (no output schema), and whether it errors or silently no-ops, leaving key behavior undefined.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, and the caveat is placed immediately after the purpose. The only cost is that the phrasing itself is ambiguous rather than the length.

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 three-required-parameter call with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the invocation returns or does. It only asserts the tool 'does not send yet,' leaving return behavior, error cases, and the resulting state entirely unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and all three required parameters (to, subject, body) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 internally muddled: it calls itself a 'status endpoint' for 'sending mail' while also saying it 'does not send yet.' An agent cannot confidently tell whether this sends, checks status, or is a no-op, and the sibling set (sc_mail_list/read/search) offers no disambiguation. The verb+resource pair is stated but immediately undercut.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'does not send yet' hints the tool is a stub, but it never tells the agent when this tool should be preferred over other mail siblings or when to avoid it.

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