Create Email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key side effect: 'The email is attached to the specified contacts' history.' However, it does not mention whether the email is actually sent, how the system handles invalid contact IDs, or what the response looks like. Minimal but adequate for a logging action.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the main action, provides a usage rationale, and lists required parameters compactly. No redundant or filler content.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description clearly explains the core function and side effect, but does not mention return values, error handling, or the exact nature of the 'log' (e.g., whether it sends or just records). With no output schema, the agent lacks information about expected response. Not fully complete but reasonable for a create tool with a thorough schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters, but this duplicates the schema's required array. It adds some context by explaining that the email is attached to contacts' history, but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond the schema. No significant added meaning.

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 logs an email in Less Annoying CRM, using the specific verb 'Log' and the resource 'email'. It distinguishes itself from sibling email tools (e.g., get_email, search_emails, delete_email) by focusing on recording correspondence for tracking, not retrieving or deleting.

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 record email correspondence with contacts for tracking purposes', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings to guide the agent.

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