Gửi email giao dịch

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that sandbox=true does not deliver to the Internet and costs nothing, that the domain must be verified, and that onboarding@monamail.vn can only send to the owner's address. These are useful behavioral constraints an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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 guidance is front-loaded and dense, with each clause carrying real information (domain requirement, sender restriction, sandbox behavior). The bilingual duplication adds length, but the content is efficient and non-redundant.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the sending/sandbox behavior but omits how content is specified (html/text vs template_id), retries/idempotency, and most parameter semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters. The description adds meaning for 'sandbox' and constrains 'from' (verified domain) and the onboarding sender, but leaves most parameters (to, html, text, subject, tags, reply_to, variables, template_id, unsubscribe_url) unexplained. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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+resource ('Use to send transactional email or test in sandbox') and narrows the scope to OTP/notification transactional mail. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling senders like mail_inbox_reply.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: use a verified domain when sending OTP or notifications, and set sandbox=true to test without real delivery or charges. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, but the when-to-use conditions are stated.

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