send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that messages are persisted in the shared portal database, which is a key side effect. However, it does not elaborate on delivery semantics, return values, or how broadcast vs. direct messaging behaves differently, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context (send, recipient, persistence) but omits details about return values or how this tool relates to threading (given sibling get_thread). It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with this complexity.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions broadcast ('all' recipient) and persistence, which are already implied by 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?

The description clearly states the action (send a message) and the target (another agent or broadcast to all agents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_messages and poll. It is specific and uses a clear verb-resource structure.

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 context for when to use the tool: for sending messages either to a specific agent or as a broadcast. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the distinct purpose from sibling tools (e.g., read_messages, update_status) makes the usage context apparent.

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