send_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. The description only states the action (sending) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether it alters campaign state). This lack of detail for a mutation tool is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriate for the simple tool. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence a 4.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should disclose more context, such as prerequisites (e.g., that a list must be created and associated), return format, or side effects. It fails to explain what happens after sending (e.g., campaign status changes). The simplicity of the tool does not excuse these gaps.

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%, and the schema already describes the parameter message_id well as 'ID письма из create_email' (ID of the letter from create_email). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Отправить' (send) and the resource 'рассылку по созданному письму' (a mailing based on a created letter). This distinguishes from sibling tools like create_email, which creates the letter, and get_campaign_status, which checks status. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, from the context it is implied that send_email should be used after create_email, as the required message_id comes from create_email. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough.

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