grokbot_send

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

The annotation only declares idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully extends it: it discloses that the operation is fire-and-forget (no blocking response), names the return values (message_id, delivery), and explains the retry contract. Auth and attachment-handling behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three terse sentences, with the core action and its async nature front-loaded and no filler. It may be slightly over-compressed for an 8-parameter tool, but every sentence carries information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations beyond idempotency and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: fork semantics, attachment formats, reply threading, and the text/rich_text relationship are all unexplained. It covers only the send action and retry path.

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 only 25%, so most of the 8 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description clarifies the retry use of message_id but says nothing about agent_id, text vs rich_text, fork, attachments, or reply_to_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 user message') and adds a key behavioral qualifier ('fire-and-forget'). However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like grokbot_draft or grokbot_react, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from this text alone.

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 an asynchronous sending context via 'fire-and-forget' and instructs on retry, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as grokbot_draft or grokbot_wait. There are many siblings that could plausibly overlap.

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