send_email_with_custom_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action (sending email) and lists parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond password, what happens with attachments, or whether this is a synchronous/blocking operation. The description is functional but lacks critical operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting, but it's quite lengthy due to documenting 13 parameters. While each parameter explanation earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, the overall description could be more front-loaded with critical usage information before the detailed parameter list.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does an adequate job documenting parameters but lacks important contextual information. While it has an output schema (mentioned in Returns), the description doesn't provide behavioral context about authentication, error conditions, or how this tool differs from its siblings. The parameter documentation is strong, but overall completeness is limited by missing operational guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates. Each parameter is clearly explained with examples (e.g., 'smtp.qq.com, smtp.gmail.com'), port guidance ('25/465/587'), content type options ('plain' or 'html'), and practical advice about TLS/SSL usage with specific ports. Optional parameters are clearly marked, and the parameter explanations add significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('使用自定义SMTP配置发送邮件' - send email with custom SMTP configuration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_email' and 'send_simple_email' that presumably use default configurations. The verb+resource combination is precise 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'send_email' or 'send_simple_email'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternative scenarios, or any context that would help an agent choose between this and other email-sending tools on the server.

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