send_email

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool sends an email via SMTP, which is an external side effect, and adds a practical requirement to provide polished HTML. It omits details like SMTP prerequisites or failure modes, but the core behavior is explicit.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: the action, the use case, and the body-format expectation. No redundant or generic phrases.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must be reasonably self-contained. It covers the main action, the intended purpose, and the key body requirement. However, it leaves several parameter semantics and any error/response behavior unaddressed. The operation is simple and the names are fairly self-evident, so the gaps are moderate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains body_html and optionally body_text; to, subject, cc, bcc, and reply_to are left undocumented. While the parameter names are conventional, the description does not add sufficient meaning for a zero-coverage schema, especially for required fields like 'to' and 'subject'.

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 action ('Send an email via SMTP using Red Mail') and the specific use case ('final, tailored job-application email to the recruiter/HR address'). It is a precise verb+resource combination, with no ambiguity or tautology.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to send the final, tailored job-application email to the recruiter/HR address', giving a clear when-to-use context. There are no sibling tools listed, so there is no opportunity to name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the intended scenario is well defined.

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