Send Message to Relay Chat

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral rule—'Reuse the idempotency key only for the same logical send'—and qualifies the chat as 'known', implying the chat must already exist. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the key idempotency caveat in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and idempotency rule. However, it does not explain how to identify a 'known' chat or how this tool differs from the similarly named sibling relay_send_message, which is a notable gap given the dense sibling list.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies text is the message content, chat_id refers to the known chat, and it clarifies idempotency_key semantics. However, it never explicitly maps parameters or explains text formatting or how to obtain chat_id.

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 names a specific action, 'Send a text Message', and a specific target, 'a known Relay Chat', so an agent can identify the core operation clearly. It does not explicitly contrast this with the similarly named sibling relay_send_message, which slightly weakens differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it never mentions relay_send_message, relay_list_chats, or any selection condition. The idempotency-key sentence is an operational instruction, not usage-selection guidance.

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