send_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It doesn't state what happens after sending (e.g., sent confirmation, the email id), implications of account selection, irreversible nature of sending, or what occurs if the send fails. For an action with side effects (sending an email), this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. The description is appropriately front-loaded given the strong schema documentation already present.

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?

There is an output schema (per context signals), which reduces the need to describe return values. Schema covers all parameters and there's an account parameter with defaults handled. However, the description lacks guidance on usage context given the rich sibling set of email tools, and lacks behavioral detail about the send action for a tool without annotations.

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%, so all 6 parameters have documented descriptions. The description adds marginal value — 'from one of your accounts' hints at the account parameter behavior, complementing the schema's 'If not specified, uses first available.' Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the heavy lifting and no parameter ambiguities exist.

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 'Send an email from one of your accounts' states the verb (send) and resource (email) clearly. It's distinguished from siblings like create_email_draft, draft_reply, and send_briefing_email through the act of actually sending vs drafting, though it doesn't 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling set includes many email-related tools (create_email_draft, draft_reply, draft_follow_up, draft_email, send_briefing_email) where usage differentiation would be valuable, but the description provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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