send_as_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends as the user, supports threading, and that @-mentions trigger push notifications. However, it omits details about idempotency, rate limits, permissions, or error handling. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—two clauses covering identity, action, threading, and mentions—with no filler. It wastes zero words while conveying all essential points.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the call returns (e.g., message ID or object). It also lacks error scenarios or permission notes. However, for a send tool with clear purpose and rich parameter details, it is nearly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% and descriptions add context: chat_id specifies numeric vs oc_xxx resolution history; text explains interaction with ats; ats details the structure and splicing into text; root_id and parent_id define threading roles. This goes well beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 it sends a text message as the logged-in Feishu user, supported by reply threading and @-mentions. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_message_as_bot (sends as bot) and send_to_user (likely direct message without identity specification) by emphasizing the user identity scope.

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?

While the description implies 'use this when sending as the logged-in user', it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_message_as_bot or send_to_user, nor does it provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks direct comparisons.

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