send_to_user

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

The description discloses the combined search, chat creation, and message sending steps, but lacks side effects (e.g., what happens if user not found, permissions needed, whether chat creation is always successful). Since no annotations exist, the description partially but insufficiently covers behavioral traits.

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 without fluff, effectively conveying the key value proposition in a structured format.

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 multi-step tool with no output schema, the description provides the overall workflow but omits details on return value, error handling, or prerequisites. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters. The description adds context about the workflow (searching by name) but does not significantly augment parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 multi-step purpose: searching a user by name, creating a P2P chat, and sending a text message. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send_to_group' or 'send_as_user' by specifying the all-in-one nature for direct messaging.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a chat ID already exists, use 'send_as_user' or 'reply_message'). The description implies use case but lacks when-not and alternative references.

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