meeting_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It details discussion rules, security requirements for caller_agent_id, impersonation flagging, audit implications, and legacy behavior, giving comprehensive insight into tool behavior.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then rules and security. It is concise yet covers essential details. A slightly more streamlined layout could improve readability, but no wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema (though not shown) and full parameter descriptions, the description covers behavioral rules and security comprehensively. It could mention error scenarios or idempotency, but for a messaging tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the context and security semantics for caller_agent_id and agent_id, and the round rules enhance round_number, so it goes above baseline.

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 the tool sends a discussion message in a meeting, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like meeting_read_messages or meeting_create by focusing on message sending and including discussion rules.

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 explicit discussion round rules (round 1, 2+, final) which guide when to use and how to behave, but does not directly compare to alternative tools like meeting_read_messages or outline exclusions.

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