Gửi email giao dịch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses verified-domain requirements, sandbox side effects, and the onboarding address limitation. However, it does not mention real-send costs/quota, idempotency behavior, template versus subject requirements, or how suppression lists affect delivery.

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 short and front-loads the most critical constraint: verified domain usage. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant but serves a mixed-language audience, and there is no filler or excessive detail.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits the subject/template selection rule, retry semantics, quota/cost behavior for real sends, and what a successful response means. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer significant behavior before invoking this side-effecting tool.

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 only 25%, and the tool description adds useful meaning for sandbox behavior and the from-address requirement. It does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters such as template_id, variables, reply_to, tags, idempotency_key, and unsubscribe_url, leaving important invocation details to inference.

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 action: sending transactional email, and it mentions concrete use cases: OTP or notifications and sandbox testing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like mail_template_create or mail_suppressions_list, but the send/test framing is distinct enough.

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 clear usage context: use a verified domain, sandbox for zero-charge tests without Internet delivery, and a special restriction on the onboarding@monamail.vn address. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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