send-shared-mailbox-mail

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

The description discloses the confirm=true gate and mandatory user approval — a critical behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). No contradiction with annotations; sending is a non-destructive write operation, consistent with the declared flags. It stops short of explaining side effects or sent-item behavior, but the key safety behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient, but the brevity leaves sibling-selection guidance on the table; it is concise rather than optimally informative.

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 9-parameter write operation with a large sibling family, the description is thin: it covers the approval gate but omits when-not-to-use and how it relates to send-mail. The fully documented schema and annotations compensate for parameter and safety context, making it minimally viable but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% — all nine parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies; the description's confirm=true mention echoes the schema's confirm parameter description rather than adding new semantics.

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 action — 'Compose and SEND an email from a shared mailbox' — with a clear verb and resource. The 'shared mailbox' qualifier distinguishes this from plain send-mail, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many shared-mailbox siblings (reply/forward/create-draft).

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 send-mail, send-draft-email, or the reply/forward shared-mailbox variants. The confirm=true requirement is a safety precondition, not usage context; an agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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