Apple Send Communication

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: contacts are resolved, assistant defaults are applied, and the channel may be Messages or Mail. It does not describe confirmation behavior, failure modes, or side effects, but it does add value beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and core scope. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given six parameters, zero parameter descriptions, a destructive action, and a large sibling family including direct send tools, the description is too thin for confident selection and invocation. The output schema covers return values, but parameter meaning and sibling differentiation remain under-specified.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at recipient resolution and default channel behavior, leaving subject, attachments, and from_account semantically unexplained. Most of the six parameters gain no meaning from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('a communication through Messages or Mail') plus the key mechanisms ('Contacts resolution and assistant defaults'). It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when sending via Messages or Mail with Contacts resolution and assistant defaults. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives like mail_send_message or messages_send_message, leaving some routing to inference.

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