chat_send_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives an example; it does not mention prerequisites, whether an active session is required, how failures are reported, or any side effects beyond sending 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every part earns its place: the action sentence, the KB pointer, and the concrete invocation example. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the missing explanations for 'context' and 'session', plus the lack of behavioral disclosure, leave the definition only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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 provides one example showing the 'message' parameter, but does not explain the meaning or purpose of the 'context' and 'session' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names and defaults alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('agent response back to the UE editor chat widget'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling chat tools like chat_poll_messages and chat_get_context, which serve different roles in the chat workflow.

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 purpose implies when to use it: after the agent has produced a response intended for the UE editor chat. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related chat lifecycle tools such as chat_poll_messages or chat_get_session_resume_context.

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