send_to_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits crucial details: whether the tool reuses existing chats, behavior on user not found, error handling, and permission requirements. The lack of such information makes it less transparent.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with a clear step-by-step flow. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (multi-step operation combining search, chat creation, and messaging) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover potential failure modes, chat reuse behavior, or guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' when a chat ID is known.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 function: it searches a user by name, creates a P2P chat, and sends a text message in one step. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like 'send_as_user' or 'send_to_group'.

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 the usage scenario: when you want to send a message to a user identified by name rather than ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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