x_api_send_chat_typing_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states mutating/high-risk behavior, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection rules, failure conditions, and safety warnings. This goes far beyond basic disclosure.

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 well-structured with labeled sections, but it is verbose and contains redundancy (e.g., 'Use when: Send Typing Indicator' merely repeats the purpose). The example is helpful, but the overall length is not tightly concise.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides expected response shape, common failure conditions, recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools, and an example. This is comprehensive for a simple tool, though some parameter gaps remain.

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 must compensate. It explains the role of id (path, required), scopeTenantId with exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId for auth resolution, and credentialKey for non-default profiles. However, it omits explanation for authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving two parameters underspecified.

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 opens with 'Send Typing Indicator', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinguishable from siblings like x_api_send_chat_message, though it doesn't explicitly state the target (e.g., 'to a chat conversation').

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 'Use when' line merely restates the tool name ('Send Typing Indicator') with no additional context. The 'Do not use when' provides only generic guidance about preferring discovery tools, not specific alternatives for this operation. No concrete scenario is given for when this tool should be chosen over sibling chat tools.

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