send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses hard rejection limits (2000 plain / 4096 embed, 'rejected, not truncated'), the 1000-character soft target, and the required message structure. It does not state permissions or rate-limit semantics beyond the anti-spam guidance, so it stops short of fully rich 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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and triggering conditions before the operational constraints, and every clause carries actionable information. It is dense and slightly long for a two-parameter tool, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

All the operational knowledge an agent needs to call this successfully — when to fire, how long the payload may be, what happens on overflow, and the formatting expectation — is present. An output schema exists, so the description rightly omits return-value detail.

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 and largely does: it explains the message length ceiling, the preferred internal structure (status line, bullets, ask last), and that embed=True yields a rich card versus plain markdown. The only gap is that it doesn't map these constraints back to the named parameter explicitly.

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: 'Send one notification to the human's Discord whenever their attention is needed.' It also enumerates the triggering conditions (blocked, decision needed, finished, user requested), so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for without any sibling ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use it (blocked, missing info, question/warning, important mid-task event, completion, user ping request) and gives the key negative constraint: 'One message per event — do not spam the user.' This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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