send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the significant side effect that omitting 'to' broadcasts to every other registered role, which is valuable behavioral information. But it says nothing about delivery, errors, or whether this is a read or write operation.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the key behavioral distinction. It loses a point for the typo 'omit to to' and for compressing two distinct ideas (targeting and broadcasting) without a clear pivot.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the one genuinely ambiguous parameter and its broadcast behavior, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It still omits what is actually transmitted and any failure/permission context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and two undocumented parameters, the description compensates well for the ambiguous one: it explains that 'to' targets a single role and that its absence triggers a broadcast. 'text' is left unexplained but is self-evident from its name.

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 paired with the concept of roles, and the broadcast-vs-targeted behavior is stated, which distinguishes it somewhat from join/rename/leave. However, the resource being sent is never named explicitly (presumably the 'text' parameter, but the description never says 'message'), leaving the purpose only implied.

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?

It effectively tells the agent when to pass 'to' versus when to omit it (omit = broadcast to all other roles), which is real usage guidance for the parameter choice. It does not, however, mention any prerequisite (e.g., that the agent must join first) or reference the sibling tools as alternatives.

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