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 does convey two constraints: the message must be non-sensitive and the room must be opted-in, but it omits side effects, delivery behavior, authorization requirements, and error conditions.

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 tightly constructed sentence with no wasted words. The core verb and object are front-loaded, and every qualifier ('non-sensitive', 'peer', 'opted-in') adds important meaning.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains almost none of the required inputs or expected behavior. An agent lacks enough context to know how to obtain visitToken or bridgeBindingProof, or what will happen after sending.

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. It loosely maps to text and nonSensitive via 'message' and 'non-sensitive', and to room via 'visitor room', but it does not explain visitToken, bridgeBindingProof, or the exact role of the room enum.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('non-sensitive peer message') with a location ('opted-in visitor room'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like bursia_visit_read and bursia_visit_join that an agent can tell this is the message-sending operation.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as bursia_visit_enter_room, bursia_visit_join, or bursia_visit_leave. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing to be joined or present in the room before sending.

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