aula_send_message

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds real context: the send must be previewed to the user and confirmed first, and the response returns the recipient's name. The anti-hallucination warning about usuarioId is genuinely behavioral rather than restating schema. It stops short of describing error or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short paragraphs, both front-loaded: the action and audience first, then the id-provenance rule, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries operational weight with no repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers what it does, how to obtain the non-obvious id, what the response returns, and the required human-in-the-loop step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by explaining where usuarioId comes from (autorId via aula_open) and explicitly forbidding guessing it from a name — provenance that the schema does not state. mensaje's plain-text nature is already covered by the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Manda un mensaje privado por la mensajería del aula virtual") and scopes the audience ("a otro usuario, docente o compañero"). That clearly separates it from sibling write tools like aula_forum_post, which publishes to a thread rather than a private inbox.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for obtaining the required id ("sale del `autorId` de un foro o una discusión abiertos con aula_open") and routes the agent to aula_open first. It also mandates a confirmation step before sending. It does not explicitly say when to prefer aula_forum_post over a private message, so no exclusions are stated.

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