Reply to a ticket via email (CUSTOMER-FACING — sends real mail)

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the email goes to customers, requires confirm_send=true, and returns new message_id and ticket_id. It explains the safety guard purpose. Missing details on rate limits or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence, a safety warning paragraph, and a flow paragraph. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and pre-requisite steps. It mentions return data (new message_id and ticket_id) but does not detail error cases or the role of message_box_id. Overall reasonably 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?

The description contributes context beyond the schema by explaining the flow and the role of confirm_send. However, schema coverage is 58% and the description does not elaborate on optional parameters like cc, bcc, is_html, or pending_reason_id. The schema descriptions for required parameters are already clear.

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 'Send an email reply on a Re:lation ticket. The email goes directly to the customer.' This specifies the verb (reply) and resource (ticket via email), and distinguishes from siblings like create_comment which may be internal notes.

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 a step-by-step flow for preparing inputs, referencing sibling tools (get_ticket, search_tickets, list_mail_accounts). It explicitly warns about the confirm_send safety interlock. However, it does not compare directly to alternatives or state when not to use.

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