send_webex_space_adaptive_card

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical webhook limitation for interactive cards, warns about silent drop of submissions, and specifies that fallback_text is required. It also mentions the return type. However, it omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, queuing, or error handling. The disclosure is strong for the key risk but not exhaustive.

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: a clear purpose sentence, an alias note, an explicit behavioral warning, then parameter descriptions. Every section serves a purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are somewhat lengthy and could be more compact (e.g., combining space_id/person parameters). The alias note is somewhat redundant, but overall it front-loads critical info.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, alias, key behavioral risk, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks guidance on mutual exclusivity of space_id vs person fields, what happens on errors, or examples. The requirement for non-empty card_body is noted but not enforced in schema. The description is functional but not fully complete for all scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the OR relationship between space_id and to_person_id/to_person_email, clarifies that fallback_text and card_body are required, and lists valid card_version values. However, it does not detail the structure of card_body or card_actions objects, which are complex and nested. The addition of a 'required' tag for fallback_text contradicts the schema's nullable default, which could confuse.

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 an Adaptive Card to a Webex space or person' and immediately clarifies the alias relationship with send_webex_adaptive_card. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like send_webex_message by specifying the card-specific functionality. The synonym note ('room' and 'space' are synonymous) further resolves potential confusion.

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 implies usage for sending adaptive cards but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use send_webex_message vs this). The alias explanation acknowledges the naming overlap, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are provided. The webhook limitation is critical but stands alone without guiding the agent on interactive card handling.

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