send_guest_message

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description does not add extra behavioral context like side effects or permission requirements, but it is not contradictory. It provides no additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 simple two-parameter send action, the description is sufficient. However, there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns; mentioning the response format would improve completeness. Still, the core functionality is adequately described.

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 100%: both parameters have descriptions that accurately restate their purpose (message text, conversation ID). The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 action ('Send a message') and the specific target ('a guest in a Guesty conversation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like respond_to_review (reviews) and get_conversations (retrieval).

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 implies the tool is for messaging within an existing conversation, as it requires a conversationId. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide prerequisites, such as first fetching the conversation with get_conversations.

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