create_emails_send_ebook_to_device

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not readOnly, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. The description adds the 'send' behavior and the requirement to discover fields, but it discloses no side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior beyond what annotations and output schema already provide.

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 compact: a one-line action, the endpoint, and a short args note. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but the structure is efficient.

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 an opaque body schema, no field descriptions, and many related sibling tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently construct the request payload or know when this tool is the right choice. It does direct the agent to the schema endpoint, which mitigates the gap, but it leaves key usage context unresolved.

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 0% and the body parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties: true. The description identifies body as the request payload and points to the GET or /schema endpoint for field discovery, but it supplies no concrete parameter semantics or field details. This is a helpful pointer rather than actual semantic coverage.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Send ebook to device.' This is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_emails_ereader_devices, which manage devices, and create_emails_test, which tests email settings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself or clarify what 'device' means in this context.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This tells the agent how to prepare, but it does not explain when to select this tool over alternatives such as create_emails_ereader_devices or list_emails_settings.

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