send_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that an email is sent from the configured Yahoo account, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the action is reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The only behavioral context is the configured account scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though its extreme brevity contributes to incompleteness rather than being a model of efficient specification.

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 five parameters with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It communicates the basic action but omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is not entirely absent, but it is substantially incomplete.

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 description mentions no parameter names, formats, or constraints. Five parameters exist (to, subject, body, cc, bcc), yet the description adds no meaning beyond the tool's basic purpose. It does not compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Send an email'. It also scopes the action to the 'configured Yahoo Mail account', so the agent knows this is a write operation using the existing mail configuration. Sibling tools are all read operations (list_emails, search_emails, get_email), so differentiation is implicit but not explicitly stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions beyond the configured account, nor does it distinguish sending from listing, searching, or getting emails. Usage is left to the agent's inference from the tool name.

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