centrex_send_communication

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 only states the basic action without mentioning side effects (e.g., message sent, cost implications), permissions needed, rate limits, error states (e.g., invalid contact, failed delivery), or idempotency. The description fails to disclose essential behavioral traits.

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 unnecessary words. However, it is overly terse and could benefit from additional brief context (e.g., required subject for email) without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized but lacks structure to front-load critical details.

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 (sending communications, two types, optional template, required subject for email), the description is incomplete. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least mention that 'subject' is required for email, that the contact must have valid contact info, and what the response contains (e.g., sent status, message ID). The current description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, including enum values for 'type'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and since the description doesn't enhance the schema, the score remains 3.

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 the verb 'Send' and the resource 'email or SMS to a contact'. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all about contacts, notes, advances, etc., with no other send tool. However, it could be more specific about the action (e.g., 'Send an email or SMS message to a specified contact').

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist, need valid email/phone), no conditions for choosing email vs SMS, and no exclusions. This lack of guidance makes it harder for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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