send_email

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, so the mutation nature is disclosed. The description adds configuration prerequisites (WRAPS_WRITE_ENABLED, verified domain) but does not mention side effects like queuing, rate limits, or error responses. Acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and key constraint, second covers address verification and array acceptance. Every word earns its place; no redundant phrasing.

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?

Prerequisites and address constraints are covered. An output schema exists, so return format is handled. Missing rate-limit or quota guidance is minor for a send operation. Overall adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds only the verification requirement for 'from' and clarifies the array option for 'to', which is already in the schema. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Send a transactional email'), the resource ('your AWS SES account'), and key constraints (verified domain, array support). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_recent_sends and get_email_event_log, which are read/verification tools. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: WRAPS_WRITE_ENABLED=true and a verified Wraps domain for the from address. While it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use, the purpose is self-evident versus sibling tools, and the conditions are actionable for the agent.

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