dingtalk_mail_message_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. '发送邮件' only states the action, offering no details about authentication requirements, sender identity, error handling, or side effects. This is essentially no behavioral transparency beyond the verb itself.

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 extremely terse at only two Chinese characters, which is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There is no front-loaded useful content beyond the basic action, making it minimally structured.

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 send operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., message ID), how it handles failures, or any important side effects, leaving a critical context gap.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (to, cc, subject, body). The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '发送邮件' clearly states the action (send) and resource (email), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dingtalk_mail_message_list (list emails). However, it lacks any additional scope or nuance, which prevents a perfect score.

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 alternatives like dingtalk_chat_send_message or dingtalk_ding_message_send. There is no context, exclusions, or mention of scenarios where email sending is preferred.

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