send_mail

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only operation. The description adds a helpful note about save_to_sent to skip saving to Sent Items, which is beyond annotations, but it contains a typo and does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error outcomes or delivery semantics.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the typo reduces quality slightly, but it is still concise and free of fluff.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of email sending, this description is far too thin. It doesn't mention success/failure feedback, attachments, or relationship to drafts, leaving significant gaps that the agent must handle blindly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain parameters, but it only references save_to_sent (incorrectly as 'save_to_ssent') and omits all other required/optional parameters like to, subject, body, cc, bcc, and html. The agent is left to infer from schema names alone.

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's function as 'Send an email,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguishable from siblings like reply, forward, and send_draft, though not explicitly differentiated, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 about when to use send_mail versus alternatives like send_draft or reply. There is no mention of exclusions or suitable contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.

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