project_kickoff_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by stating 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other traits like required permissions or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 four sentences and front-loads the purpose. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly more concise. Still, it earns its length.

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 generation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and a behavioral trait (no draft limit). Parameters are fully documented in the schema. It feels adequately complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 does not add meaningful information beyond the schema; it describes the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on parameters or their usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Write a professional project kickoff email to send after winning a project.' The verb 'write' and resource 'project kickoff email' are specific, and the context 'after winning a project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like bid_lost_follow_up or brief_confirmation_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 says 'Use this immediately after the client says yes — before the scope of work is signed.' This provides clear timing context. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient and differentiates from related tools like contract_sent_email.

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