send_message_as_bot

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral transparency burden. It accurately describes the sending action and the @-mention resolution behavior, but omits details on permissions, rate limits, or whether the bot must be in the chat. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with zero wasted words. The critical @-mention guidance is front-loaded after the general purpose, making it scanable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and a relatively simple send action, the description covers the essential information: what it does, where it sends, and the key nuance of @-mentions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the content parameter's auto-serialization and providing a clear example of @-mention syntax with inline <at> tags, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 sends a message as the bot to any chat, supporting various message types (text, post, interactive, etc.) and highlights the key @-mention behavior. This verb+resource+specialty distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_as_user or send_card_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 explicitly positions this as the reliable path for @-mentions, implying it should be used over alternatives when @-mentions are needed. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or compare directly with other send tools.

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