sendSalesMail

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true. The description confirms this by stating that after sending, the corresponding mail state is updated to 'sent'. It also adds constraints about split orders, which annotations do not cover.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter guidance, then post-condition, then constraints. No unnecessary information.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested object, no output schema, relevant siblings, and annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavioral effects, and constraints completely.

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%, but the description explains that sale_id identifies the target order and the mail object specifies the type and options. It also suggests using getSales/getSale for listing/details, compensating for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 sends notification emails for orders (specifically 受注メール, 入金確認メール, 商品発送メール). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getSales (listing) and getSale (details).

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 explains when to use the tool (to send emails for an order) and provides a constraint: for split orders, emails can only be sent to the parent order, not child orders. No direct alternative is mentioned, but the context is clear.

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