send_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the draft-saving behavior and HTML support, but lacks details on authentication, size limits, or error handling. Additional context about Outlook integration or constraints would improve transparency.

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 concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects. The output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable for a typical send operation. The sibling tools list provides clear context, and the description is notably complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail, including semicolon-separated addresses for to/cc/bcc, absolute paths for attachments, and the boolean flags html and save_as_draft. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw 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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'new email', with an alternative action 'save it as a draft'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forward_email or reply_to_email, which handle different email operations.

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 implicitly indicates use for new emails or drafts, but does not explicitly specify when to use alternatives like forward or reply. However, the sibling context makes the distinction clear enough.

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