Send a routing form

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: the operation sends to exactly one recipient, the response always contains publicUrl, and there is a rate limit of 20 per minute. It does not elaborate on what the destructive hint refers to, but the annotations cover that baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and outcomes, the second states the key response field, the third states the rate limit. No filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 there is an output schema, a moderately rich input schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It adds the rate limit and the publicUrl invariant, which are not in the structured data. A small gap is that it doesn not explain any prerequisites or exclusions for sending, but the overall package is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 71%, so the description is not fully burdened but also has room to add parameter meaning. It reinforces the deliveryMethod enum by explaining email, SMS, and link mintung, and adds the 'one recipient' constraint. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of formId or recipientName beyond their names, and the schema already documents most parameter details.

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 verb ('send') and resource ('routing form'), and clarifies the delivery modes (email, SMS, or link minting). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like create_routing_form, list_routing_forms, update_routing_form, and delete_routing_form, which involve different actions on the same resource.

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 gives clear delivery context: email, SMS, or link-only minting. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but for a send operation the scope is reasonably clear. The sibling list shows other form operations, and the description's delivery-mode breakdown helps an agent pick the right invocation path.

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