Apple Send Message Interactive

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

With annotations already marking idempotence and destructiveness, the description adds a concrete behavioral trait: it prompts the user when recipient or text is absent. This tells an agent that omitted parameters trigger an interactive request rather than a silent failure. It does not overpromise side effects or contradict openWorldHint.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the key conditional behavior. No filler or repeated schema info.

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 definition covers the core flow of an interactive send for a two-parameter tool and an output schema exists. However, it omits when to choose this tool over non-interactive senders and does not explain what happens after the interactive prompt, so the 0% schema coverage is not fully compensated.

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 0%, so the description carries more weight. It maps directly to both parameters ('recipient or text') and clarifies that omitting them is acceptable because the tool will ask. However, it does not define expected recipient formats (name, phone, email) or provide text constraints, leaving significant semantics to the agent.

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?

Description uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Send an Apple Messages message') and adds the interactive behavior ('asking for missing recipient or text when needed'). It is distinct from a plain send, though it does not name a sibling tool or explicitly contrast with messages_send_message.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this interactive variant over messages_send_message or apple_send_communication. The 'when needed' clause describes prompt behavior, not tool-selection context, and no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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