send message

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations by disclosing an active anti-mistouch guard and that CDP mode bypasses coordinates. However, for a tool annotated destructiveHint=true, it never explains what the send can disrupt (e.g. interrupting an in-progress generation or overwriting existing input), so the destructive profile remains unexplained.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant facts. Dense and free of padding, though the semicolon chain is terse enough that intent requires some inference.

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 9-parameter destructive write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials via schema and annotations but leaves gaps: the layout enum is unexplained, the guard/quietSeconds interaction is only in the schema, and return behavior is not described.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters including at, send, force, preview, and quietSeconds. The description only restates the send flag and notes that coordinates are auto-resolved in CDP mode, adding little beyond structured fields.

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: input or send a message into the current session. The clause about CDP direct connection not needing coordinates implicitly separates it from coordinate-based siblings such as minimax_click or minimax_type, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Useful implied guidance comes from 'send=true triggers sending', which tells the agent the fill-only vs submit distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or comparison against alternatives like minimax_type, minimax_draft_answer, or minimax_new_task.

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