Send PromptJang event

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

Annotations mark the operation as non-readonly and non-idempotent, while the description adds meaningful boundaries: only registered targets are accepted, arbitrary URLs are never allowed, and idempotency_key should be set when re-sending the same logical item. Delivery/error behavior isn't detailed, but the annotation burden is already partly met.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, key constraint, and idempotency guidance. Every sentence carries useful signal with no fluff.

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 five-param send operation with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to call correctly. Minor gaps about delivery failure behavior and explicit alternative routing remain but don't block correct use.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, including target_id provenance and idempotency_key's duplicate-prevention role. The description mostly restates these schema details rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 specific verb and resource: accepts one JSON item for a registered webhook, mailbox, or A2A target. It clearly distinguishes from sibling read/replay tools by focusing on sending a new event and requiring a registered target_id from list_targets.

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?

Provides concrete invocation context: target must be pre-registered, target_id must come from list_targets, and arbitrary URLs are rejected. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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