send_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the identity used for the sender, the permission model (players and spectators), that no revision/locking is needed, and that 'sent' is fire-and-forget with no delivery guarantee. Missing only rate limits or whether the sender is echoed the message.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers identity, permissions, revision requirements, and the return-value caveat. Room visibility/ordering of delivered messages would be the only remaining detail an agent might want.

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 coverage is 0% for a single required 'message' parameter, so the description would ideally say something about content. It says nothing about the message body, though the schema's minLength 1 / maxLength 2000 constraints make the parameter self-evident, so the gap is minor.

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 and resource (send chat) scoped to the current room, and immediately clarifies the identity source (the name used when joining). It is unmistakably distinct from the read-side sibling get_chat_messages.

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 says both players and spectators may send and that no revision token is required, which pre-empts the main confusion versus the other game actions (play_cards, discard_card) that do require revisions. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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