Envoyer un email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it flags the action as 'ACTION IRRÉVERSIBLE' and emphasizes that the email is actually sent, not staged or simulated. It could add more about failures or side effects, but the key irreversible behavior is disclosed.

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 the most important warning placed first in uppercase. Every word is functional and there is no filler.

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?

Given that this is a destructive send action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical pre-call requirement and the irreversible nature. It does not describe the response or failure modes, but for a send tool the main risk and required protocol are well covered.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that recipient, subject, and content must be confirmed, but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action: 'envoie réellement un nouvel email' (actually sends a new email). It is distinct enough from reply/forward siblings by specifying a new email, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition: the agent must always get user confirmation of recipient, subject, and content before calling. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this tool over reply_to_email or forward_email, so it stops short of a 5.

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