ClawAIMail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default inbox behavior and auto-creation, which is helpful, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation, delivery status). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 just two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about the default inbox. There's zero wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, email ID, etc.), doesn't mention authentication or permission requirements, and provides minimal behavioral context beyond the default inbox feature. Given the complexity of email sending, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the default inbox behavior for 'inbox_id', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 resource 'email', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'my_email' or 'read_email' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 some usage context by explaining the default inbox behavior when 'inbox_id' is omitted. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'my_email' or 'search_emails', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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