project_scope_acceptance_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. It only mentions that the tool does not count against the draft limit and requires certain parameters. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it sends the email automatically, any required authentication, or what happens on the server side. For a tool that generates email content, this is insufficient.

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 mostly concise with a clear purpose statement upfront. The parameter list is somewhat lengthy but well-structured with 'Required:', 'Optional:' and inline examples. A minor improvement could be to trim example verbosity, but overall it's well-organized.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers the tool's function and parameter usage adequately. It explains the email's purpose and bridges the gap between verbal and formal agreement. It could mention the output format (e.g., 'returns the email body'), but since there is no output schema, the current level is acceptable.

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% with all 7 parameters described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing example values (e.g., 'kick off Monday June 23'), notes on when to omit, and synonyms (e.g., 'brief bullet list'). This helps the agent fill parameters correctly.

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 an email to confirm project scope before a formal contract. It uses specific verb 'confirm' and resource 'email', and distinguishes from siblings like 'scope_clarification_email' or 'contract_sent_email' by specifying the timing ('before the formal contract arrives').

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 when to use: 'when you want to confirm a client's project scope before the formal contract arrives.' It also notes that it doesn't count against the monthly draft limit. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the context of sibling names provides some differentiation.

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