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

Annotations only tell us this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds what that actually means: real people see it, it cannot be unsent, and the wording should be confirmed with the user first. It also notes the file is uploaded once and reusable across dialogs, which is real behavioral context absent from 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?

Front-loaded with what is sent and from where, then the prerequisite, then the irreversible-action warning, then bulk guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the consequential behavior (delivery to a real person, irreversibility, batching) well. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns or how failures surface, which is the only real gap for a write tool of this weight.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented including where media_id and the ids come from, so the schema already carries the burden. The description reinforces the list_media lookup and the media reuse semantics but adds little format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Send) plus the resource (photo, video or document from the project's media library) and the recipient (a client), with a caption. This cleanly separates it from dosai_send_operator_message (text) and dosai_list_media (discovery) without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to dosai_list_media for the file id, and for bulk sending prescribes one-by-one with an 8-10 second pause or escalating to the owner for a broadcast. When-to-use and the alternative path are both spelled out.

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