qq_send

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, idempotent operation with open-world effects aid idempotency. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: allowlist enforcement, 'if enabled' gating, exact retry guidance, and the reply_to requirement for official replies. It does not contradict the 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the retry and reply guidance are packed into terse, actionable clauses.

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?

For a mutating send tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the most important operational nuance: idempotent retries and reply_to handling. It could add a little more about the allowlist/provider split, but it is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 explains idempotency_key semantics and reply_to usage, but it leaves provider, kind, and target largely to the enum values and titles in the schema. Partial compensation only, so a mid-range score 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send explicitly requested plain text to an allowlisted target, if enabled.' This clearly distinguishes qq_send from its siblings (qq_status, qq_targets, qq_context, qq_forget), none of which perform sends.

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?

It conveys concrete usage constraints: use a unique key per intended send, reuse it for retries, and avoid retrying unknown deliveries with a new key. It also states that official replies require a retained received message's reply_to ID. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools do not appear to be sending alternatives, so this is adequate.

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