send_message_as_bot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the @-mention resolution behavior and confirms the tool sends as the bot. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios, which is a notable gap for a mutating operation.

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, purpose-first, with no filler. The @-mention tip is valuable and earns its place. Every word contributes to usability.

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 the tool's simplicity and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential details for correct invocation. It could mention prerequisites like authentication scopes or whether 'any chat' includes private chats, but the provided context is sufficient for most use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level details beyond the schema; the @-mention syntax is already in the content parameter description. No new meaning is provided for chat_id or msg_type beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's action: 'Send a message as the bot to any chat.' It also specifies supported message types (text, post, interactive) and highlights the unique @-mention capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_as_user and send_to_user.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'This is the reliable path for @-mentions' indicates when to prefer this tool. It implicitly differentiates from 'send as user' variants by focusing on bot identity. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools when @-mentions are not needed.

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