wb_chat_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a hard constraint (≤1000 chars) and a dependency on wb_buyer_chats for reply_sign. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, failure/error behavior, and side effects, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than strong.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the action, then followed by the key constraints and dependency. Every clause adds useful information and there is no repetition 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-string send operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the non-obvious parameter source, and a length limit. Still, it leaves out response/return behavior, error conditions, and authorization context, so the description is adequate but not fully 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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains that reply_sign is sourced from wb_buyer_chats and caps message at 1000 characters. It does not specify the exact field or format of reply_sign, but it provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Send a message to a buyer chat'. It also adds the scope constraint of ≤1000 chars and the reply_sign provenance, which fully defines the operation and distinguishes it from sibling chat tools like wb_chat_events and wb_chat_download.

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 gives one explicit usage dependency: reply_sign comes from wb_buyer_chats. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as feedback/question reply tools, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear but mostly implied rather than stated.

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