bot message

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

The annotations explicitly set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description never explains what is destructive: whether sending is irreversible, whether cancel terminates live work, or what resume_pending restarts. Two of the four enum actions are completely undisclosed behaviourally, so the description adds almost nothing to the safety profile the annotations already flag.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the resource first. It is efficiently written, though its brevity comes partly from omitting information an agent genuinely needs.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and a destructive write path, the description covers the send and read cases but leaves the cancel and resume_pending actions entirely unexplained. An agent could call it for the documented modes, but would be guessing on the two remaining enum values and on what destructive side effects to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already defines text, limit, action, and chatId, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the chatId targeting (group or Bot) and the read-latest-conversation behaviour of limit, but adds no meaning for the cancel and resume_pending enum values beyond what the schema field names state.

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 names a specific resource (MiniMax Bot team, a group chat, or a Bot) and two concrete verbs (send instructions, read the latest conversation). This is clear enough that an agent can tell what the tool does, but the description does not differentiate it from the sibling tool minimax_send_message, and it never acknowledges that the tool also supports cancel and resume_pending actions.

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 two modes, sending instructions and reading history, but gives no criteria for choosing between them, no mention of the cancel or resume_pending actions that the action enum offers, and no guidance on when to prefer this tool over functionally adjacent tools such as minimax_send_message or minimax_read_session.

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