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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: 'The result confirms the target and time without returning a message id or echoing the message body.' It also clarifies the idempotency semantics (same conversation and text) and the organization-owned scope. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with the critical idempotency constraint and response behavior. No extraneous words or repetition.

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?

The description, combined with a rich input schema and an output schema, fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the idempotency behavior, the response limitations, and all required parameters. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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 each parameter is already documented (content, conversationId, idempotencyKey). The description adds nuance about idempotencyKey reuse but largely restates what the schema says ('Stable unique retry key for this exact conversation and reply text'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 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?

Clearly states the verb 'send', the resource ('operator reply in an organization-owned Supovia conversation'), and the idempotent nature, which distinguishes it from all read/list siblings in the tool list. The description leaves no doubt about what action this tool performs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on idempotencyKey reuse ('Reuse the same idempotencyKey only when retrying the same conversation and text'), which is a key usage rule. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but given all sibling tools are read/list operations, the intended use is unambiguous.

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