send_as_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about @-mentions triggering push notifications and the 'as user' identity aspect. However, it does not mention side effects like message irreversibility, delivery guarantees, or prerequisites such as login status. Some behavioral traits are disclosed, but not comprehensively.

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 a single, information-dense sentence preceded by a useful identity tag. It states the core action first, then qualifying details (reply threading, @-mention behavior). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. While the description and schema together cover the mechanics, the description lacks guidance on choosing this vs closely related siblings (send_to_user, send_to_group, reply_message) and does not hint at return values or failure conditions. It is adequate for a simple send action but leaves contextual gaps given the tool's position among many similar send variants.

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%, so the parameters (chat_id, text, ats, root_id, parent_id) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal param value beyond noting that @-mentions are 'real' and trigger notifications, which slightly augments the schema's explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 text message') and the actor ('as the logged-in Feishu user'), immediately distinguishing it from bot-send alternatives. Mention of 'text message' and 'real @-mentions' differentiates it from sibling tools like send_post_as_user, send_card_as_user, and send_message_as_bot. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage contexts through phrases like 'as the logged-in Feishu user' (vs bot) and 'Supports reply threading' (vs standalone send), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like send_to_user, send_to_group, or reply_message. No exclusions or direct comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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