cigchat_send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that this is a real side-effecting operation ('Delivers a real message to a person') and states the required scope, which is helpful. However, it does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior, or delivery guarantees, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the primary action and a key caveat. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 description covers the core purpose and auth requirement but leaves gaps such as the meaning of user_ns, the format of content (plain text vs HTML), and whether subject is optional. For a simple send tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema provides only 'Example: email content' and 'Example: email subject' for two parameters, while the required user_ns has no description at all. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what user_ns represents or how the parameters interact.

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 and resource ('Send email content to subscriber') and clarifies that it 'Delivers a real message to a person.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_sms or send_text by specifying 'email' as the channel.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cigchat_send_sms or cigchat_send_text. The only context given is the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is an authorization detail, not a usage criterion or exclusion.

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