send_besked

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write that is idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: delivery is limited to currently connected phones, the payload is capped at 4000 characters, and sends should be rationed. There is a mild tension with idempotentHint=true, since warning against sending multiple times hints repeated calls can duplicate messages, but the text is a usage recommendation rather than a factual claim about the 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?

Four short sentences that front-load the action, then the intended use, then the restriction, then the length limit. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers recipients, permitted content, throttling, and size limit. Only the failure/response behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% for the single 'tekst' parameter, so the description has to carry the load. It does partially, by imposing a 4000-character ceiling and indicating the intended content (the fridge question, the plan's sms_tekst), but it never states format expectations such as plain text versus markup.

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 to the household's phones via the connected Telegram bot, with a scope qualifier ('kun tilkoblede telefoner'). It is clearly a write/send action distinct from read-side siblings like vis_beskeder, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 concrete when-to-use cases tied to the weekly plan (the fridge question and the plan's sms_tekst for approval) and an explicit when-not: 'Send ikke andet, og ikke flere gange end nødvendigt.' No alternative tool is named for other messaging needs, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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