send_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: security risk of file exfiltration (explicit warning), logging of attachment paths, and the non-fatal fallback behavior of save_to_sent. This goes well beyond basic description.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose (e.g., including full SECURITY warning). Minimal waste, but could be tighter.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter behavior, security context, failure handling, and return value. It addresses Yandex-specific quirks (auto-save gap), making it fully complete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning for all 8 parameters. It does so clearly: explains comma-separated format for multiple recipients, html flag meaning, attachments as absolute file paths, and save_to_sent behavior including Yandex-specific rationale.

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 immediately states 'Send an email via Yandex SMTP', providing a specific verb and resource. The detailed parameter list distinguishes it from siblings like forward_email by focusing on SMTP sending with full control over recipients, body format, and attachments.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forward_email or reply_email. It implies usage for composing new emails, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided. The security warning suggests user approval context, but usage guidance remains implicit.

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