project_status_update

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 discloses that the tool does not count against a monthly draft limit, which is helpful. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like idempotency, whether the email is sent automatically or drafted, or any side effects. The description is truthful but could be more comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with three sentences: the main action, the content coverage, and a key benefit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and content. It covers the email's structure and a unique benefit. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns the email text or sends it) or how parameters are combined. Minor gap for a complete picture.

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% with each parameter described individually. The description adds value by mapping parameters to the content sections (e.g., 'completed_this_period' corresponds to 'what was completed'), clarifying their purpose in the email context. It also notes that 'your_name' is optional for sign-off.

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 a professional project status update email for clients during longer engagements, specifying the content areas (completed, next steps, blockers, timeline). While not explicitly differentiating from similar sibling email tools like 'client_check_in_email', the description is specific enough about the email type and context.

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 gives context ('during a longer engagement') and a benefit ('keeps clients informed without a meeting'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternative sibling tools. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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