delivery_notes_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the action (sends email with PDF) and the recipient constraint, but does not mention potential side effects such as marking the delivery note as sent or updating its status. This is a common area of ambiguity for send actions.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and a critical constraint. No unnecessary information is included, and the structure is clear and direct.

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 description, combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage, gives a complete picture of how to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit output details (e.g., return value or confirmation), but for a side-effect action like sending an email, this is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of whether the delivery note must be in a specific status (e.g., issued) before sending.

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 describes each parameter (e.g., 'Email address' for 'to', 'cc', 'bcc'). The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that recipients must be registered client emails, and that subject and body are auto-generated if omitted (which is also in the schema). This enhances understanding beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 tool's purpose: sending a delivery note via email with a PDF attachment. It also specifies the tool's scope (delivery notes only) and mentions customizable subject/body/CC/BCC, which distinguishes it from other email tools like invoices_email or receipts_email.

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 concrete usage constraint: recipients must be client emails registered on the company, otherwise an EMAIL_RECIPIENT_NOT_CLIENT error is thrown. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative email tools, the delivery note context and constraint serve as clear guidance.

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