Send Email with Attachment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. 'Send' implies an outbound side effect, but the description does not mention sender defaults, recipient impact, attachment encoding expectations, failure behavior, or whether the action is reversible.

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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but minimal, so it earns a high score for conciseness even though it leaves behavioral guidance to the schema.

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?

With 6 parameters, nested attachment objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It omits routing between send_email and send_email_with_attachment, attachment constraints, sender default behavior, and expected results after sending.

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 describes all 6 parameters, including to, cc, from, subject, body, and the attachments nested object with name, content, and content_type. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Send'), a resource ('email'), and scope ('with file attachments'), which distinguishes it from the sibling send_email tool. However, it is nearly identical to the title and does not explicitly describe what makes this tool different from other email-related siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus send_email or the draft/save variants. The sibling list suggests an alternative, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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