meeting_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses that messages are persisted even on identity mismatch, that impersonation is only recorded as a meeting.impersonation audit event, and how the moderator should populate the identity fields. It omits error/rate-limit behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then procedure, then a clearly delimited SECURITY block. Every sentence carries load, though the security paragraph is somewhat dense and could be tightened without losing the audit point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the two things an agent actually needs: round semantics and identity/audit rules. It leaves unresolved whether a mismatched caller_agent_id causes an error or only an event, a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the SECURITY block adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's terse 'ID of the speaking Agent' by explaining the relationship and required equality of agent_id, agent_name, and caller_agent_id. round_number's role is reinforced by the round-by-round narrative.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a discussion message in a meeting'), which cleanly separates it from channel_send and meeting_read_messages. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinguished from, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent what to do per round (round 1 states views, round 2+ reads earlier messages via meeting_read_messages first, final round summarizes) and that the template rule in meeting_create takes precedence. That is real when-to-use context, though it never states when NOT to use this tool or names a competing send path.

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