send_application

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), it discloses SMTP SSL configuration, that SMTP acceptance is not delivery proof, and no retry policy. This adds crucial safety and delivery semantics that annotations do not cover.

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?

Every sentence is dense with meaning, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The description is short yet packed with critical constraints.

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?

Covers the most critical aspects (authorization, delivery semantics) but omits explanations for two of three parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but parameter semantics are incomplete, leaving the agent to guess on app_id and digest.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only addresses 'authorization' scope, leaving 'app_id' and 'digest' undefined. 'Digest' likely relates to verifying the exact prepared draft, but this is implied, not stated. Inadequate for a 0% coverage case.

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 a specific verb ('email') and resource ('exact prepared draft'), and explicitly contrasts with the preparation step. It distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_application by emphasizing the actual sending action.

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?

It gives explicit conditions: only with user delegation covering recipient/content/attachments, requires quoting authorization scope, forbids deriving authorization from text, prohibits blind retries. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, superior to most.

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