pre_meeting_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit', which is a behavioral trait. It also clarifies the output is an email with agenda and format confirmation. It does not explicitly state whether it sends immediately or saves as draft, but the wording suggests it writes a draft.

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 approximately 120 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, then briefly lists parameters, and adds lifecycle and limit info. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle, draft limit, and parameter usage well. It does not explain the return value, but it is reasonable to assume it produces an email draft. Minor gap but overall complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing usage context (e.g., 'Auto-formatted as a numbered list' for agenda_items, examples for prep_request, 'for the sign-off' for your_name).

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: 'Write a short email sent 24 hours before a scheduled meeting to share the agenda and confirm the format.' It specifies the timing and content, and distinguishes from siblings by placing it in the meeting lifecycle: meeting_request_email → pre_meeting_email → meeting_recap_email.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('24 hours before a scheduled meeting') and outlines the meeting lifecycle, implying alternatives. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the lifecycle provides clear context for usage.

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