Send message

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds the key behavioral nuance that a reply may or may not be returned synchronously, which drives the subsequent get_replies/wait_for_reply decision. It does not discuss failure modes, auth, or rate limits, keeping it just below top marks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the follow-up flow, then the continuation rule. Every sentence carries operational information with no filler.

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 an async send tool with no output schema and full param coverage, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect on return and how to chain the next call via threadId. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about threadId semantics ('reuse threadId to continue the same conversation') that the schema only hints at with 'existing conversation id'. The 'configured bot webhook' phrasing reinforces the bot parameter's default behavior already documented in the schema.

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 a message to a configured bot webhook') that an agent can act on directly. It differentiates itself from the read/flows siblings (get_replies, wait_for_reply) by naming them as follow-ups, though it does not explicitly contrast with broadcast_message.

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?

Gives explicit follow-up branching: if no reply is returned, keep the threadId and call get_replies or wait_for_reply. 'Reuse threadId to continue the same conversation' clarifies the continuation case. It stops short of stating when to prefer broadcast_message or when not to use this tool.

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