dm_send

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), open-world and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely valuable fact beyond them — that the tool currently returns transport_unavailable, i.e. it is non-functional — but it omits what gets sent, what permissions are needed, and whether a draft must exist first.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so there is no padding, but the single semicolon-joined sentence is grammatically vague and spends its first clause on a constraint while omitting the actual purpose.

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 mutation tool with an undocumented required ID, no output schema, and open-world behavior, an agent still cannot tell what actionId refers to or what a successful send would mean. The transport_unavailable warning is useful, but it does not compensate for the missing purpose and parameter meaning.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions actionId at all — no format, no source, no example. With the schema providing nothing, the description carries the full burden and adds zero semantic content.

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 verb 'Send' is present but the resource is never named — nothing states that this sends a direct message, or what the 'verified permitted transport' actually carries. An agent must infer the purpose from the tool name dm_send and the single actionId parameter.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to siblings such as dm_prepare_draft or dm_get_outbox, which an agent would naturally weigh against this tool. The one constraint given ('only through a verified permitted transport') is a policy restriction, not a usage rule.

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