send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two key behaviors: messages also go out by email (side effect) and the default confirm=false path is a dry-run that only returns the resolved-recipient preview. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior for unresolved recipients.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and channel before the recipient mechanics and the confirm gate. Every clause carries information; slightly parenthetical but no filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is sent, where it goes, how recipients are resolved, and the preview/send gate. It lacks authentication, rate-limit, and error-handling context, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: groups are keys from list_recipients with '*' meaning all, recipient_names are 'prénom nom', and confirm controls preview vs. send. subject and text are left undocumented but are self-explanatory from their names.

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 verb and resource ('Envoie un nouveau message via la messagerie Click n' Glide') and states the dual channel (messaging + email). This clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings (list_messages, read_message) and the forum tools.

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 gives clear operational context: recipients may be specified via recipient_ids and/or recipient_names and/or groups, and without confirm=true nothing is sent. The preview-first workflow is implied but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like post_daily_forum_message or point to list_recipients/read_message as the follow-up steps.

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