reply_to_email

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds value by disclosing that In-Reply-To, References, and Re:-prefix are set automatically. However, it does not state other side effects such as whether the email is actually sent, whether the original is modified, or any authentication requirements.

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 compact: a single sentence describing the action and behavior, followed by a concise list of parameters. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no redundancy.

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 reply tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral detail (automatic header setting). It doesn't elaborate on return values, but an output schema is present, so that is not required. Missing details like side effects are limited but not severe.

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 input schema provides only types and defaults, with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: uid identifies the email, body is the plain-text reply, mailbox defaults to INBOX, and body_html is an optional HTML version. This fully clarifies parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Svara på ett e-post' (reply to an email), clearly identifying the action and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting automatic In-Reply-To, References, and Re:-prefix handling, which is specific to reply functionality.

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?

The description provides a clear context: it is for replying to an existing email, which differentiates from send_email or forward_email. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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