appwrite_send_sms

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 mentions the SMS provider prerequisite but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether sending is synchronous, rate limits, cost/billing implications, delivery status handling, or error behavior for invalid phone numbers.

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 appropriately brief with only two sentences and no wasted words. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is slightly unnecessary noise but does not significantly detract from the overall clarity. The most critical information (action and prerequisite) is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. A messaging tool with multiple targeting options requires explanation of parameter relationships and return behavior, which are entirely absent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage with 8 parameters, and the description provides no semantic clarification for any parameter. Critical distinctions between 'topics', 'users', and 'targets' (which appear to be different targeting mechanisms) are unexplained, as are the formats for 'site' and 'message_id'.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('SMS message'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling messaging tools like appwrite_send_email or appwrite_send_push in the description text, though the tool name handles differentiation.

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 one key prerequisite ('Requires configured SMS provider'), which helps establish when the tool is ready for use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling email or push notification tools, or warnings about cost implications typical of SMS.

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