queue_email_for_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully bounds the side effect (local inbox only, no draft, no send). However it omits reversibility, whether the item waits for approve/discard, and any permission or idempotency notes, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key non-behavior. Nothing is wasted and the disambiguation is placed where it will be read first.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is complete enough to invoke but thin on the surrounding approval workflow (what happens after queuing, how it is reviewed/discarded). More context on the queue lifecycle would help the agent use it correctly.

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 60%, so the non-obvious fields (note, tone, risks, intent, rationale, source_message_ids) are already documented in the schema and the self-evident required fields (to, subject, text) need little. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save a proposed email in the local approval inbox') and explicitly negates the two most confusable siblings (create_draft, send_email). An agent can tell this apart from the draft/send tools without opening the schema.

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 exclusions ('does not create a Mail draft or send anything') give clear context and route the agent away from the sibling write tools, so the approval path is well signaled. It stops short of naming the adjacent approval siblings (approve_queued_email, discard_queued_email) or stating the positive 'when to use' condition.

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