project_handover_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool sends with deliverables attached or linked and importantly notes it does not count against the monthly draft limit. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool actually sends the email or just drafts it, which is a minor 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 a single paragraph of four sentences, immediately stating the purpose, contrasting with a sibling, and adding key behavioral notes. No unnecessary words, well structured.

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 the moderate number of parameters (7, 2 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage distinction, and a practical side effect (draft limit). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks details on return value or post-send behavior, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., examples in schema descriptions are already detailed). The description does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 writes an email delivering final project files to a client, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'project_closure_email' by contrasting the practical handover focus with the relationship closure purpose, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explains when to use this tool ('the practical handover: here are your files...') and contrasts it with the sibling 'project_closure_email' which handles the relationship close and testimonial ask. This provides clear usage context and exclusions.

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