send_email

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it discloses SMTP transport, recipient separators, html=True semantics, attachment path expectations, and that save_to_sent=True writes a copy to the Sent folder via IMAP. It adds material behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds parameter clarifications, and ends with the side-effect behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral and parameter nuances well. Minor gaps remain around error behavior, sending limits, or return values, but the essential context for calling this tool is 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of several parameters: recipient separators for to/cc/bcc, html=True treating body as HTML, attachments as local paths, and save_to_sent affecting Sent-folder copying. It does not detail reply_to, but the main ambiguous parameters are clarified.

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 that the tool sends an email via SMTP, using a specific verb and resource ('Envia um e-mail via SMTP'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like reply_email or forward_email, but the message that it sends a new email with recipients, subject, and body is unmistakable.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reply_email or forward_email. The description implies it is for sending new emails, but it does not state exclusions or mention when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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