compose_email

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses modes (send, draft, open) and the requirement of body as fallback. However, it doesn't mention side effects like irreversibility of sending or authentication needs.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but somewhat lengthy with 9 parameters. It is clear and front-loads the main purpose, though some detail could be condensed.

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?

All parameters and return value are described. No output schema exists, but description mentions 'confirmation message'. Lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for typical use.

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 description fully explains each parameter: account, to, subject, body, cc, bcc, attachments, mode, body_html. It provides examples for attachments and clarifies relationships like body as fallback for body_html.

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?

Clearly states 'Compose and send a new email from a specific account.' The verb 'compose and send' and resource 'email' are unambiguous, and the scope 'from a specific account' differentiates from siblings like forward_email or reply_to_email.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like forward_email exist, the description doesn't mention them or provide conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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