Set the gap between sends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the randomization multiplier, that already-queued messages are rescheduled, the default per-channel behavior, and that openers/burst breaks/daily limits still apply. It stops short of saying whether the change is immediate or requires a reconnect, and there is no output schema to cover the response.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics, then boundary values, then side effects, then the caution — a sensible order. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence packs three distinct constraints (openers, burst breaks, daily limit) into one clause and reads slightly dense.

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 two-parameter configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the setting means, its boundaries, its side effects on the queue, and the safety rationale. The only genuine gap is the absence of any statement about the result of the call or permission requirements.

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 beyond the schema: it explains the 1x–2x random jitter applied on top of gap_seconds and clarifies what reverting to the channel default actually yields (WhatsApp 1–3s). connection_id is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its description is complete.

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 ('Set how long a connection waits between two sends') and immediately defines the resulting behavior, including the randomized upper bound of twice the gap. No sibling tool touches send pacing, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 an explicit when-not: 'change it only when the person asks', backed by the consequence (account looks less human, platform restriction risk). It also disambiguates the two boundary values of the main parameter — 0 for back-to-back, null to revert to the channel default — which is exactly the decision an agent faces.

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