bitrix_add_task_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the confirm=true requirement, which signals a write operation requiring explicit confirmation, but it does not explain side effects, visibility of the message, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The confirm requirement is already documented in the schema, so the description adds little extra behavioral context.

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 consists of two short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the confirm requirement is a concise, relevant addition. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains the basic action and confirm guard but omits important context for safe invocation: what happens after sending, whether the message is editable/deletable, any permission expectations, and when to use sibling tools instead. With three required parameters and a write operation, more context is needed.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; the confirm=true mention is already present in the parameter description. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 clearly states the action: 'send a message' to the 'Bitrix24 task chat' – a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like bitrix_send_direct_message (direct message) and bitrix_list_task_messages (listing messages), but it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 only usage guideline is 'Требует confirm=true', which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this over bitrix_send_direct_message or how it relates to bitrix_create_task/bitrix_update_task.

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