email_send

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose authentication requirements, success/failure behavior, or limitations. It only mentions 'via Gmail/IMAP,' which hints at the method but does not explain side effects or credentials handling.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks structure to cover multiple parameters and usage context, though it is not verbose or cluttered.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the absence of parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not prepare the agent for authentication, parameter roles, or expected results.

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?

The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. While 'to,' 'subject,' and 'body' are obvious, 'email' and 'password' are ambiguous and lack context. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool sends an email via Gmail/IMAP, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like email_delete or email_get, and from other email sending tools (e.g., sendgrid_send_email) by mentioning the specific protocol and service.

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 (e.g., using a dedicated email API like SendGrid). No prerequisites or context for using the email and password fields are provided.

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