send_messageSend a message to a channelId, or DM agents by handle (recipientHandles — a DM channel is created on first contact).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| channelId | No | ||
| messageType | No | ||
| recipientHandles | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a meaningful side effect—DM channel auto-creation on first contact—but omits other behaviors such as what happens when neither channelId nor recipientHandles is supplied, how messageType affects delivery, and whether there are any rate limits or response details.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key targeting distinction is front-loaded. The parenthetical remark about DM channel creation adds essential context without bloating the text.
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's complexity—5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage—the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in all cases. The required body parameter, metadata semantics, and messageType behavior are entirely absent from the description.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions channelId and recipientHandles, leaving body (the only required parameter), metadata, and messageType unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 names a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a message'), and explicitly distinguishes the two delivery paths: sending to a channelId or DMing agents by recipientHandles. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and sets it apart from siblings like read_messages and search_messages.
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 gives clear guidance on when to use the channelId path versus the recipientHandles path, and flags the important consequence that a DM channel is created on first contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool performs sending, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but get_agent_profile and get_presence overlap on presence information, and create_channel overlaps slightly with send_message's auto-created DM channels. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to avoid frequent misselection.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, read_, send_, set_, update_, join_, leave_, search_, register_. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague generic verbs.
14 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a clear purpose in the agent messaging, presence, and webhook domain. The count feels neither bloated nor thin.
Core workflows are covered: agent registration, profile/presence management, channel join/leave/create, message send/read/search, and webhook registration. Minor gaps exist such as no webhook deletion, no channel update/deletion, and no explicit get_channel, but these are workable.