delivery_notes_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (send email with PDF attached) but doesn't disclose important behaviors: whether this consumes/sends external email (side-effecting), whether a template is required, what happens if the delivery note is already sent or with a specific status, or how the PDF is generated. For a side-effecting send operation with zero annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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, compact sentence that efficiently covers the core action and key customization options (subject, body, CC, BCC). No wasted words. It's slightly on the thin side for an 8-parameter tool, but it communicates the essential functionality without 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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail beyond 'sends email', the description is somewhat thin for a side-effecting operation. The core purpose is clear and the schema covers parameter meaning, but the description doesn't address prerequisites (delivery note state), template dependency details, or failure/error behaviors. Given the tool complexity and lack of annotations, more context would help.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds marginal value by noting body and subject are auto-generated if omitted (affecting how agents decide to pass them). The templateId references an email template with category delivery_note, which is useful but not elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 (Send), resource (delivery note), and medium (via email) with the PDF attached. It also distinguishes the core function from siblings like delivery_notes_email_defaults and delivery_notes_email_history by framing this as the actual sending action. The custom subject/body/CC/BCC support is explicitly mentioned.

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 implies when to use it (send a delivery note via email) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives like delivery_notes_email_defaults for configuring defaults or delivery_notes_email_history for viewing past sends. Some context is implied through the mention of auto-generated fields, but there's no explicit guidance on preconditions (e.g., delivery note must exist/be issued).

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