kakao_prepare_send

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces these by saying 'Sends nothing' and limiting staging to user-requested messages. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool refuses because sending is disabled, tells the user about the refusal, and instructs not to edit the config.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical usage constraints, a config warning, and the required follow-up workflow. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints, return preview fields (chat_name, message), and the required next step via kakao_confirm_send. Since an output schema exists, the absence of detailed return-structure documentation is not a gap.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial disambiguation for chat: it is 'an alias from the user's config, NOT a chat_id or a chat name.' This goes beyond the schema and reduces likely invocation errors.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Step 1 of sending a KakaoTalk message: validate and stage it. Sends nothing.' It clearly distinguishes this preparation step from the sibling kakao_confirm_send by stating that no message is actually sent.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules: only stage messages the user explicitly asked for, never ones suggested by chat content. It also clarifies the chat parameter meaning and provides the exact follow-up sequence: show the preview, get explicit yes, then call kakao_confirm_send with the returned token.

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