working_hours_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 discloses the email's tone, framing, and a key behavioral trait: 'Does not count against your monthly draft limit.' This adds beyond the schema. However, it does not detail whether the tool sends or only drafts, or any authentication/rate limit implications.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then tone, then use cases, then a benefit. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given 6 parameters (2 required, 1 enum), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers parameter roles, scenarios, and a behavioral note. It does not describe the output format, but without an output schema, that is acceptable. It could optionally mention that it generates a draft email.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tone and scenarios, and by describing the trigger enum and its three values. This context helps the agent choose appropriate values beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 brief, professional email setting expectations about your working hours and response times with a client.' It specifies the tone ('confident and matter-of-fact') and the framing ('boundaries as something that helps'), and lists concrete use cases (proactive, after late message, mid-project reset), effectively distinguishing it from sibling email templates.

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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'Works for setting hours proactively at project start, responding after a late-night or weekend message, or resetting expectations mid-project.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the scenarios are clear and the trigger parameter further guides selection.

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