Send a message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by revealing that the tool returns an idempotency originToken and that retrying with it prevents double-sends. It implies the create/send side effect, though it doesn't discuss notification or delivery 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral detail. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 3-parameter send operation, this is nearly complete: the action, target, and idempotency contract are all present. It would benefit from noting where conversationUrn comes from, but that is available through sibling get_conversations.

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 explains originToken's purpose explicitly, and text/conversationUrn are inferable from the action, but the URN format or how to obtain it is not described.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: sending a message within a conversation, and the originToken detail makes the action more concrete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comment, react, and react_to_message, which target different interaction types.

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 clearly sets the context (a conversation) and gives actionable retry guidance by telling the agent to pass the returned originToken on retries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the conversation scoping is a clear enough context signal.

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