create_emails_test

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's only additional behavioral disclosure is that the body fields are discoverable via GET or /schema — a small hint about API discoverability. It does not disclose what sending a test email actually does (e.g., whether it sends to the configured address, whether it fails fast if SMTP is unconfigured, whether it persists anything). No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added behavioral value.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded: purpose first ('Send test email'), then the HTTP endpoint, then the parameter note. Every line earns its place, and the parameter guidance is appropriately brief. No redundant phrasing or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency/non-destructiveness, the description covers the basics: purpose, endpoint, and how to discover the payload. However, it never explains the real-world purpose of a test email (verifying that email/notification settings work), nor what a successful response means for the caller. These gaps are moderate for such a simple tool, making it adequate but 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 0% and the single body parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties: true, so the schema alone is nearly useless. The description partially compensates by labeling body as 'Request payload' and directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field discovery. This is a helpful pointer, but it stops short of enumerating any actual fields, so the agent still needs at least one additional call to understand the payload.

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 specific verb and resource ('Send test email') that distinguishes it from email-related siblings like create_emails_send_ebook_to_device and create_emails_ereader_devices. Including the exact endpoint (POST /api/emails/test) further anchors the tool's identity. It loses the fifth point only because it never clarifies what 'test' validates (e.g., verifying SMTP settings) — a nuance an agent selecting this tool would benefit from.

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 offers procedural guidance ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects'), which is useful for constructing the request correctly. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use context versus alternatives — there is no statement of when sending a test email is appropriate (e.g., after configuring email settings) or which sibling handles other email operations. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name.

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