send_to_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core action but omits critical details: authentication needs, side effects (message creation), failure modes (group not found), and whether the operation is reversible. This lack of disclosure makes it hard for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing prerequisites) could improve readability without adding much length.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., user must have access to the group), what happens on success or error, or how the @-mention feature works. The context signals indicate moderate complexity, so more detail is needed.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the send action. The ats parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already provides adequate documentation.

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 action: search group by name and send text message, all in one step. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_to_user (individual) and send_message_as_bot (bot) by focusing on group search and immediate send.

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 usage for sending text to a group when the group name is known, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching separately or using other send methods). No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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