send_as_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sending as the user and push notifications for mentions, but omits important details like permissions required, rate limits, message length limits, and side effects such as message visibility, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with '[User Identity]', and contains no unnecessary words.

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 is relatively straightforward, but the description lacks coverage of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., login status), and how replies work. Given no output schema or annotations, it is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., mentions reply threading and @-mentions, which are already detailed in parameter descriptions), so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Send a text message as the logged-in Feishu user' and specifies capabilities (reply threading, @-mentions with notifications), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_card_as_user, send_file_as_user, and send_message_as_bot.

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 use for text messages as the current user and mentions reply threading and @-mentions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., send_post_as_user, send_to_user) or when not to use it.

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