send_to_user

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

The description transparently discloses the side effect of creating a P2P chat, which is important behavioral context beyond the basic send action. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure about error cases (e.g., user not found, multiple matches), return values, or permissions, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and flow. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool performs a multi-step operation (search, create chat, send) and is complex enough to warrant more detail about failure handling, message delivery confirmation, and whether existing chats are reused. The description outlines the flow but omits these important operational details, and with no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the pipeline itself. The mention that ats uses 'Same format as send_as_user.ats' provides useful cross-referencing context, but otherwise user_name and text are adequately covered by the schema. 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 states a clear multi-step pipeline: 'Search user by name → create P2P chat → send text message.' This is specific about the verb (send), resource (text message to a user), and flow, distinguishing it from siblings like send_to_group and send_as_user by emphasizing the search-and-create behavior in one step.

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 phrase 'All in one step' conveys that this tool is intended when you need to send a message to a user by name without manually creating a chat first. This implies use cases and differentiates from alternatives like create_p2p_chat plus send_message_as_bot, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this.

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