skool_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Writes', indicating a state-changing operation, and adds a caution to 'confirm wording first', suggesting irreversibility. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens to the conversation. It provides basic but not comprehensive 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action first. The warning follows logically, and the channel_id sourcing is given in a separate sentence. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite (obtaining channel_id), the write nature, and a caution. It doesn't mention error scenarios or return values, but for this low complexity, it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 explain the parameters. It gives a direct source for channel_id (from list_conversations), and content is implicitly understood as the message text from the verb 'Send'. However, it doesn't specify any constraints, formats, or expectations for content, and doesn't explicitly link content to the parameter. It adds some value but falls short of fully clarifying both parameters.

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 clearly states the action (send a DM), the target (an existing conversation), and the write nature. It distinguishes from starting a new conversation by specifying 'existing', which is a key differentiator from the sibling 'skool_start_chat'.

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?

It provides an explicit instruction on how to obtain the channel_id (from skool_list_conversations), which is actionable for the agent. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the phrase 'existing conversation' implicitly guides away from starting a new chat. This is clear but not fully explicit.

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