send_synthesis_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it warns that responses take 30–90 seconds and advises to warn the user, and it explicitly outlines the return value ('AI analyst's response text with findings, patterns, or answers'). This adds practical context beyond a simple function signature. It doesn't mention side effects like whether the message is saved to chat history, but the latency and return type are significant disclosures, so a 4 is warranted.

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 is well-structured and appropriately concise. It opens with a clear purpose, gives usage guidance, adds a critical latency note with a user-facing warning, states the return value, and lists parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary repetition or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, the expected latency, the return value, and the prerequisite relationship to create_synthesis_chat. It could additionally mention behavior on invalid chat_id or whether the message is persisted, but these are minor gaps, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 schema has no descriptions for its parameters (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully with an explicit Args section explaining chat_id as 'The unique identifier of the chat (from create_synthesis_chat)' and message as 'The question or request to send to the AI analyst.' This goes far beyond the bare schema titles 'Chat Id' and 'Message,' giving the agent clear guidance on what each parameter means and where chat_id comes from.

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 'Send a message to a Synthesis Studio AI chat' with the specific verb 'send' and resource 'message to chat,' and contrasts with siblings like create_synthesis_chat (creating a chat) and get_synthesis_chat (retrieving chat). It also lists concrete use cases (ask questions, explore themes, compare participants, generate insights), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to ask questions about research data, explore themes, request comparisons across participants, or generate new insights from the data.' It also implies a prerequisite by specifying chat_id comes from create_synthesis_chat. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar actions, so it falls short of a 5.

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