send_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Send a new email' implies an action but does not disclose that sending is irreversible, whether replies via thread_id/in_reply_to behave differently, how attachments are handled, or any permission or rate-limit implications. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, 'Send a new email' is too minimal to serve as a useful description.

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 tool's complexity, the lack of annotations, and the presence of sibling tools like draft_email and modify_email, this description is incomplete. It does not explain send semantics, reply behavior, attachment expectations, or when to choose this tool over alternatives. The rich schema and output schema compensate for some gaps, but not the operational context.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'new email,' but the schema carries the load, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a new email' clearly identifies a send operation on an email. It is clear enough to separate sending from reading, searching, or modifying, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like draft_email or modify_email.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Send a new email,' without mentioning when drafting, modifying, batching, or searching would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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