create_email

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or whether it creates a draft or triggers a send. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about important behavioral aspects beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence in Russian that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, the non-English text may reduce clarity for some agents, and the extreme brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 complexity of the tool (5 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, the effect of invoking it, or any constraints (e.g., uniqueness of sender_email). The description leaves many unanswered questions for an agent.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds a summary of fields (subject, body, sender) but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already contains, such as constraints, formatting, or relationships between parameters.

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 'email message for mailing', and it lists key fields (subject, body, sender). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email (which sends) and create_list (which creates lists), but could be more explicit about creating a draft entity for a campaign.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email or create_list. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing list_id, or when not to use it. The description solely states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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