Create embedded sending link

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive traits. The description adds important behavioral details: for templates/template groups, it automatically creates a document/group first, and in compatible clients the UI renders inline. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the core action, the second adds essential behavioral context. No filler or redundancy.

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 the 7 parameters, output schema existence, and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key behaviors. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist) or link details, but the existing content is reasonably complete for a tool with good schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly relates to the 'name' parameter via the auto-creation mention. The enum values for 'type' are already in the schema.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'embedded sending', and specifies the supported entity types: document, document group, template, template group. It also distinguishes behavior for templates by noting auto-creation of a document first. This level of specificity helps differentiate from sibling tools.

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 context on when to use the tool (for managing, editing, or sending invites) and mentions inline rendering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, such as create_embedded_sending_from_template, despite the many related tools.

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