pingen_send_letter

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral distinction between draft and immediate send, and importantly explains why delivery_product is required on the auto_send path ('it is the one route that never reaches pingen_submit_letter'). It does not cover return values or error behavior, but the core send semantics are transparent.

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 two dense sentences. The first states the main action, the second explains the draft/send branching and product requirement. Every clause adds information without padding.

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?

The tool has two distinct modes and 4 parameters, with no output schema. The description covers the modes and the parameter dependency, but omits what the operation returns (e.g., a letter ID) and any file validation details. This is a notable gap given there is no output schema to fill it.

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?

The schema already documents all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context connecting auto_send and delivery_product, explaining the logical reason for the dependency. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Upload a PDF and create a letter', a precise verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes the draft/send behavior from the sibling pingen_submit_letter by explaining that drafts are not mailed until that tool is called, and auto_send=true creates the letter immediately.

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?

It explicitly explains the default draft workflow ('nothing is mailed until pingen_submit_letter') and the alternative immediate-send path (auto_send=true) including the delivery_product requirement. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough.

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