Message Send

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description's 'Irreversible' is consistent with them rather than contradictory. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations by imposing the human-approval gate, but it says nothing about failure modes, partial sends, or post-send state.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and the irreversibility caveat front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, irreversibility and the approval prerequisite. It is nearly complete, only omitting what the caller sees on success or failure.

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% and both parameters are documented there (messageId points to conversation_messages/conversation_thread, organizationId points to organization_list). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (send) plus resource (draft message) and the delivery channel (the conversation's inbox), which clearly separates it from message_update, message_delete and conversation_reply. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 chain: only call after the user approved the draft, and read it with message_get first. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling, though it does not state when NOT to use it or cover alternative send paths.

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