Send Email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'send an email,' implying a side-effecting operation, but does not describe delivery guarantees, required authentication, validation of recipients, or how the body and html fields interact. Nothing beyond the basic action 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?

The description is a single eight-word sentence, front-loading the core action and content type. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing or 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 seven parameters, three required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain optional parameters (cc, bcc, from), disambiguate body vs html, or signal whether attachments are unsupported here. The presence of a sibling with attachment support makes this ambiguity costly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic cue that the body can contain text or HTML, but it does not clarify the relationship between the distinct body and html parameters, which is a likely source of confusion. It neither enriches schema meaning nor resolves ambiguity, so it stays at baseline.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('an email'), and specifies content type ('text or HTML body'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool send_email_with_attachment, which is likely to be confused with this one. The lack of explicit 'without attachment' leaves some ambiguity.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling send_email_with_attachment for emails with files, or save_as_draft for drafts. An agent must infer the appropriate context from tool names alone.

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