send_test_email

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

The description uses the word 'test' implying a non-production send, but it does not explicitly state whether the email is actually delivered or if there are side effects. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action, with no extraneous 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 has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how the context object is used beyond the schema's brief note.

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 50% (only to_email and context have descriptions). The description does not explain project_id or slug, nor does it add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'using a template' which relates to slug, but this is insufficient for the two undocumented parameters.

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 it sends a test email using a template to a specified address, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like preview_email_template or upsert_email_template, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where sending a test email is appropriate compared to previewing or editing templates.

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