token_bowl_chat_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the room-vs-DM routing behavior and the returned message shape, but omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid recipient) for a write operation.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized with Args/Returns sections. Slightly redundant, as the opening sentence and the following paragraph restate the room-vs-DM distinction, but overall efficient.

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-param send tool, both parameters and the routing behavior are covered. An output schema exists, so the Returns block is somewhat redundant, and behavioral gaps (auth, errors) remain since there are no annotations, but the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: content is marked required, and to_username is documented as optional with the explicit default behavior (falls back to the main room). It adds real meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource (send a message) with explicit scope: main chat room vs. direct message to a user. The name plus description clearly distinguish it from read-side siblings like token_bowl_chat_get_messages and token_bowl_chat_get_direct_messages.

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?

Explains the two usage modes (room broadcast vs. private DM) and how the optional parameter selects between them. It gives clear context for when each mode applies but does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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