send_to_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action (search + send) but omits crucial behaviors: what happens if the group is not found, whether it creates the group, whether there are side effects, or how the 'User Identity' affects the operation. This is a significant gap for a message-sending 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 concise sentence with an arrow indicating the workflow. There is zero wasted text, and the key action is front-loaded. This is an example of efficient, well-structured messaging, even though it sacrifices completeness.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only three parameters, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or disambiguation rules. A minimal viable description for a message-sending tool should disclose at least what occurs on failure and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'Group chat name' and 'Message text' are already explained. It does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases (e.g., exact name matching), so no extra credit is warranted.

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 states a clear action: 'Search group by name → send text message. All in one step.' It identifies the verb (send), resource (group text message), and the combined search-and-send behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like send_to_user or batch_send, but the 'all in one step' phrasing hints at a unique combined behavior.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find a group by name and send a text message in one step. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling tool to prefer (e.g., send_to_user, send_as_user). The context is present but underdeveloped.

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