late_delivery_apology

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes some useful traits (no counting against draft limit, tone guidelines), but does not clarify whether the tool sends the email or just drafts it, or any side effects like updating project records. This is a moderate 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?

The description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear. Minor room for improvement in structuring behavioral notes more explicitly.

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?

For a simple email-drafting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, tone, and a behavioral constraint (draft limit). It does not explain return behavior, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 the description does not need to add much. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: writing a professional email when missing a deadline. It specifies the resource (email) and verb (write), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like project_delay_warning or project_status_update, which may have overlapping use cases.

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 provides clear context for when to use ('when you are going to miss a deadline or are already late'), but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many siblings. For example, it does not differentiate from project_delay_warning or overdue_project_timeline_update.

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