meineba_postfach_send

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

Annotations already cover write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, open-world framing. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the preview-vs-send two-phase flow and the fact that sent messages are binding and persisted to the local case file. It omits auth requirements and error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the preview/send distinction, then the consequence. No filler and nothing buried.

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 send tool with an output schema (which carries the preview payload) and annotations covering the write profile, the description supplies the confirmation protocol and side-effect note an agent needs. It leaves the sourcing of recipient_id/topic fields to the schema descriptions, which are present.

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 67% and the schema already explains confirm ('Must be true to actually send'), topic, recipient_id and recipient_name. The description's only parameter-relevant content restates the confirm flag, adding no format or sourcing detail for text/subject beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send a message') and resource ('through the user's Postfach') with the target authority named. It implicitly separates itself from read-side siblings like meineba_postfach_read and meineba_postfach, but never names them explicitly, so it lands short of 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?

The confirm=true gating gives a clear when/when-not: without it the call is a harmless preview, with it the message is actually sent. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating prerequisites such as login state or required recipient lookup via meineba_postfach_recipients.

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