conduyt_ai_compose_email

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals that the tool drafts rather than sends, but says nothing about cost/latency of an AI call, whether results are persisted, how the 'previousMessages' cap is enforced, or whether the draft is returned only (no output schema). For a non-annotated AI mutation-adjacent tool this is thin.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability and its driving inputs front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is simply short enough that it leaves gaps rather than waste.

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 AI generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the three returned artifacts, which is helpful, but omits whether the email is sent, what happens with missing optional context, and how the draft should be handed off. Adequate, not complete.

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% across all 12 parameters, so the schema documents tone enum, dealStage, previousMessages limits, etc. The description adds only light framing ('based on contact context, deal stage, and desired tone'), which is baseline 3 territory.

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?

Specific verb ('Generates') plus concrete outputs (subject, body, HTML) and the contextual inputs that drive them. It implicitly separates itself from conduyt_send_email and conduyt_ai_improve_email by being a fresh composition step, though it never names those siblings.

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 framing implies this is the drafting step before conduyt_send_email, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to conduyt_ai_improve_email for refining an existing draft. The agent must infer the workflow.

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