servicebus_send_message

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

Discloses auth requirements and scheduling behavior, but does not mention error scenarios (e.g., queue not found), message size limits, or return value. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden but is incomplete.

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?

Four sentences with clear front-loading. No redundant information, but could be slightly more concise.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on most parameters, error handling, and success/failure behavior. Output schema exists but its contents are not used to supplement description.

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?

Only 2 of 7 parameters are described in the text (namespace and scheduled_enqueue_time). Critical parameters like body, session_id, correlation_id, and application_properties are not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover more.

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 it sends a single message to an Azure Service Bus queue or topic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like servicebus_send_batch and the peek/purge/requeue tools.

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 guidance on namespace format (short name vs FQDN), scheduled_enqueue_time format (ISO 8601), and authentication (DefaultAzureCredential, need 'az login'). Could be improved by explicitly stating when to use versus servicebus_send_batch.

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