send_message

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it requires human approval and a one-time token, and it sends the exact message as previewed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the safe execution flow. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key constraints. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description provides some context (previewed message, human approval, token) but lacks essential workflow details: it does not mention that preview_message should be called first, how to obtain the confirmation token, or what happens on success/failure. Without an output schema, agents are left without enough info to confidently invoke the tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify the parameters but only refers to the token as 'token de un solo uso' without linking it to confirmation_token. It does not explain recipient_user_id or text fields, nor where the token comes from or how it is obtained. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Envía' = sends), a resource (the message), and adds a precise qualifier ('exacto previsualizado' = exact previewed message), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling preview_message tool. It also indicates the need for human approval and a one-time token, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a usage constraint: the message must be the exact previewed one, and human approval plus a one-time token are required. However, it does not explicitly state that this should be used after preview_message, nor does it name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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