Reply to consultation request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states two side effects: a real email is sent and the request is marked as replied, plus a caution to confirm with the user. It could go further by mentioning irreversibility or limitations, but the key consequences are explicitly disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and mechanism, the second discloses side effects, and the third gives the critical confirmation requirement. Essential information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a side-effectful email-sending tool with no output schema and five required parameters, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and user confirmation step. It does not mention error cases, rate limits, or permission requirements, but these are not expected given the context and the description provides enough for an agent to safely invoke the 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 20% (only body has a description), so the tool description should compensate. It provides context that to_email/to_name refer to the requester and that consultation_id identifies the submitted request, but it does not explicitly describe each parameter's format, constraints, or expected combination. The parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, and the description supplies enough context to infer usage, earning a midpoint score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send an email reply' with a clear resource 'someone who submitted a consultation/demo request', and explicitly distinguishes this from other consultation-related operations by noting it uses the site's reply-consultation function and sends a real email. It clearly differs from siblings like get_consultation_request or update_consultation_request.

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 states the operation sends a real email and marks the request as replied, which implies when it is appropriate. It adds a direct usage instruction: 'Confirm the message with the user before calling.' However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this instead of update_consultation_request or other alternatives.

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