send_chat_message

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the mutation ('send') but does not mention required permissions, side effects, rate limits, failure modes, or response behavior, which are relevant for a chat-sending action.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core action and the optional thread behavior are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 three-parameter send operation, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits potentially useful context such as whether thread_id must belong to the specified channel, delivery guarantees, and what the agent should expect as a response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that channel_id is the target channel and thread_id enables optional threading, and it implies message is the content. However, it adds little beyond what the parameter names and types already suggest.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: sends a chat message to a channel, optionally into a thread. This distinguishes it from send_private_message and reply_to_topic, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 when to use the tool by specifying channel-based chat and optional threading, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer send_private_message or reply_to_topic instead. This is adequate for such a simple tool, but not strongly directive.

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