freelance_send_message

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 explicitly warns 'NOTHING UNDOES THIS' and that the recipient is notified, which is critical for an irreversible send action. It also discloses that the message is sent under the account's name, a key behavioral detail.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core action and then layering warnings and usage rules. Every sentence adds value: purpose, scope, irreversibility, approval requirement, and addressing syntax. No fluff or redundancy.

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 send-message tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to target the recipient, the irreversible nature, and the human-approval requirement. It even explains how to anchor a new thread. The description is fully self-sufficient.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the mutually exclusive addressing logic ('EITHER with conversationId... OR with exactly one of...'), which the schema alone does not convey. It also clarifies the required message field. Given the schema coverage signal of 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 precise verb and object: 'Send a message to a real person, under this account's name.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling conversation-list/retrieval tools by emphasizing the send action and the irreversibility. The mention of 'MESSAGE scope' and the explicit 'no edit and no delete' further delineate its unique role.

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 explicit usage guidance: it requires user confirmation before sending ('get a yes before calling'), clarifies that drafting is fine, and specifies exactly how to target a thread via either conversationId or one of the four anchored IDs. This is superior guidance that goes beyond basic when-to-use, including a safety rule.

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