yougile_send_message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the chatId relationship and confirming group chat support. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description consists of two short, direct sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional detail is immediately relevant.

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 tool with complete schema annotations and no output schema, the description provides key context (chatId mapping, group chat support). It could mention potential requirements like chat membership, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (text and chatId). The description essentially repeats the chatId = taskId mapping already present in the schema, so it adds no significant new parameter meaning beyond the high coverage baseline.

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 tool's function with the verb 'Send' and resource 'chat', distinguishing it from sibling message tools like list_messages, get_message, and delete_message. It also provides specific detail about chatId mapping for task chats.

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 clear usage context: chatId = taskId for task chats, and also works for group chats. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is self-evident relative to the sibling tools.

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