send_email

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full load and discloses real behavioral traits: the SMTP send path, default-account fallback, recipient separator syntax, the html flag's effect on body, and—most valuably—a secondary IMAP side effect writing a copy to Sent when save_to_sent=True. It stops short of covering authentication or failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Each sentence is dense and earns its place, front-loading the core action before moving to parameter notes. It is telegraphic rather than verbose, though the terse style leaves some sentences borderline fragmentary.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, key parameter semantics, and the Sent-folder side effect. It omits any note on send failures or return values, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly are present.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does so for the non-obvious ones: account (empty means default), to (comma/semicolon separators), html (body treated as HTML), attachments (local file paths), and save_to_sent (Sent-folder copy). The remaining params (subject, body, cc, bcc, reply_to) go undiscussed but are largely self-evident from their names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Envia um e-mail') plus the transport mechanism (via SMTP), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like reply_email and forward_email. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It gives the conditional 'account vazio = conta padrão', which is useful context, but never states when to prefer this tool over reply_email or forward_email for a thread. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained, so it sits at minimum-viable guidance.

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