yahoo_send_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that send_now=False saves to Drafts, that attachments must sit in allowed folders (default ~/Downloads or temp, overridable via YAHOO_MAIL_ALLOWED_DIRS) or the operation fails, and that account defaults to the file-marked default. It stops short of covering auth/permission prerequisites or rate limits.

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?

Format is well front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by an Args list, so the key behavior precedes the detail. The per-argument lines are mostly single clauses that earn their place, though the attachments note is comparatively verbose.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral facts (draft-vs-send default, attachment folder constraint, account default), and an output schema exists so return-shape explanation is not required. It is largely sufficient, with only prerequisite/error semantics beyond attachments lightly covered.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and its Args block documents all nine parameters including format hints ('comma-separated'), the html flag semantics, allowed attachment directories, and the account key convention. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a new email via SMTP, or save as draft') and immediately flags the default behavior of saving a draft. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like yahoo_forward_mail and yahoo_move_mail, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 dual mode (send vs draft) is implied through the send_now default, giving some sense of when each path applies. However, it never names alternatives such as yahoo_forward_mail or states when-not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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