ghl_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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals that emails may be held by the Judge gate if flagged, that every call is governed by Arbiter policy, and that a ProofLink receipt is sealed. It also states the required scope. These are meaningful behavioral traits, though the exact meaning of 'flagged' and the holding mechanics are not detailed.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, but it redundantly mentions the ProofLink receipt sealing in both the first and second sentences. Despite this minor repetition, it avoids unnecessary detail and remains concise.

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 essential purpose, scope, and key behaviors, but without an output schema or annotations, it omits details on return values, error conditions, and the meaning of 'flagged'. For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is only partially complete, leaving some ambiguity about the email-sending flow.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information, despite the schema having 0% coverage. It only implies that contact_id identifies the recipient ('GHL contact'), while subject, body, from_name, and from_email are not elaborated. The schema property names are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool sends an email to a GHL contact, specifies the Judge gate mechanism, and mentions the ProofLink receipt. This distinguishes it from sibling GHL tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_trigger_workflow, which perform different actions.

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?

The description implies usage for sending emails to GHL contacts and provides a prerequisite (scope: ghl:messaging:write), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Among sibling tools, no other email-sending tool exists, so the use case is fairly clear but not explicitly guided.

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