avito_send_first_message

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces the non-idempotent risk by warning to verify the conversation before retrying after an error or timeout. It also discloses side effects (conversation creation/reuse), a write constraint (no bulk, no attachments), and a safety precondition not present in the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the gating condition and the failure-recovery rule. No filler or repetition.

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 non-idempotent mutation with explicit annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, gating, exclusions and retry safety. Minor gaps: no mention of authentication/session prerequisites (siblings include avito_login/session_status) and no hint of what a successful call returns, though there is no output schema to carry that.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry detailed descriptions, including the adId vs listId caveat. The description only restates that adId identifies the ad, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (envoie un premier message texte) and resource (au vendeur de l'annonce adId), plus the side effect of creating or reusing the conversation. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling avito_send_message, which handles subsequent messages in an existing conversation.

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 precondition ('seulement si l'utilisateur a explicitement demandé cet envoi'), exclusions ('aucun envoi en masse ni pièce jointe'), and a retry protocol after error/timeout. It does not, however, name the alternative tool (avito_send_message) or state when to prefer it over this one.

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