send_candidate_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (send email) without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or return value expectations. Lacks sufficient transparency for an action tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or irrelevant information. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description should provide comprehensive guidance. It covers template and message but omits subject and the output/return behavior. Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it, leaving gaps.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'template' can be a predefined enum string or a Zoho template_id, and that 'message' is for ad-hoc body. However, the 'subject' parameter is not described, and the interaction between template and message is unclear, partially compensating but incomplete.

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?

Clearly states 'Send an email to a candidate' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_candidate or update_candidate_status, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

Explains how to use the tool (template options, ad-hoc message) but does not specify when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. Since no alternative email tool exists, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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