ghl_proposal_send_document

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint as false (write operation) and destructiveHint as false, which is consistent with 'send'. The description adds the endpoint but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., triggers notifications, changes document status). Minimal extra context beyond annotations.

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 short (3 lines) but the first line repeats the title, and the second adds minimal clarification. The third line is technical endpoint info. Could be more structured or informative without being 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?

Given no output schema and a moderately complex input, the description lacks details on return values, when to use different mediums (email vs link), and prerequisites. However, the schema provides good parameter documentation, so it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, only the endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Send document' and 'Send document to a client', which conveys the primary action. The tool name includes 'proposal', so the type of document is implied. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'ghl_proposal_send_template', which also sends a proposal-related item.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, nor any comparison to sibling tools such as ghl_proposal_send_template or ghl_proposal_list_documents.

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