cm_send_classic_email

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating state change, which the description aligns with by saying 'Send'. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects like adding recipients to a list (parameter AddRecipientsToListID exists).

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 very short (one sentence) and includes a warning emoji for emphasis. While concise, for a tool with 16 parameters it may be too brief to be actionable. The structure is front-loaded with purpose but lacks detail.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return behavior, success/failure indicators, or how the email sending process works. The sibling tools indicate many related actions, but the description provides no context on where this fits.

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 high (88%), so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself does not explain any parameters, which is acceptable given the schema carries that load. No additional value is added, but baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 'Send a classic transactional email with your own content' clearly states the action (send) and resource (classic transactional email). It distinguishes from sending a campaign or smart email by mentioning 'classic' and 'with your own content', but it doesn't fully differentiate among the many sibling tools like cm_send_campaign or cm_send_smart_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain that this is for transactional emails (e.g., receipts) rather than marketing campaigns, or when to use cm_send_smart_email instead. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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