bitrix_send_direct_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that confirm=true is mandatory, that the 'im' access scope must be enabled, and that without it the tool returns a user-friendly error with instructions rather than a raw Bitrix error. This is useful behavioral context, though it could go further by describing the actual success/failure result format.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the key exclusion and the operational requirements. Every sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, alternative, and prerequisites/error behavior.

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?

Given the relative simplicity of a send-message tool, the description covers the essential context: target recipient, alternative for task chats, required confirm flag, and webhook scope prerequisite. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention what happens on success or whether the response contains an ID, but this is not critical for a message-sending 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including mutual exclusivity of userId and dialogId. The description adds marginal context by reinforcing that dialogId targets an existing chat/dialog and that the message is a personal message, but it does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Отправить' — send), a clear resource (personal message to a Bitrix24 user or existing chat/dialog by dialogId), and explicitly distinguishes it from task chat messages by naming bitrix_add_task_message as the alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the most easily confused sibling.

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 explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'не сообщение в чат задачи — для этого используйте bitrix_add_task_message'. It also states the required precondition of confirm=true and the required 'im' webhook scope, giving the agent clear preconditions for invoking the tool.

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