send_message_as_bot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the @-mention behavior (inline tag becomes real notification). However, it omits other traits like permissions, rate limits, delivery guarantees, or error handling, which are important 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose clearly, second adds key usage detail. No wasted words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key feature but lacks context on return values, error scenarios, and prerequisites. Minimally adequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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% with detailed property descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the @-mention syntax already in the schema for 'content', but adds no new parameter info beyond what the schema provides.

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 multiple message types. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_as_user' by specifying 'as the bot' and highlighting the @-mention reliability, but does not explicitly contrast with other send tools.

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 gives specific guidance for @-mentions ('reliable path'), but lacks when-not-to-use advice or alternatives. No mention of when to prefer this over reply_message, forward_message, or other send variants.

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