aamio_send

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: encryption to the partner, signing by the sender, and the distinction between text and structured data. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful context about security and payload structure. It does not mention delivery guarantees, errors, or whether the message is persisted, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary action and addressing modes in the first sentence, then adds security and payload guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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's moderate complexity (3 params, one nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage: how to address, what to put in text vs data, and the security model. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but for a send operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'text' holds the message text and 'data' holds structured values, and that 'to' can be a partner name or a reply_to write address. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of 'to' (e.g., how to distinguish a name from an address), but the guidance is solid.

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 tool's purpose: sending a message to a partner by name or to a write address from a message's reply_to. It specifies the action (send), the resource (message), and the two distinct addressing modes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aamio_read or aamio_board_post.

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 on when to use the tool: when sending a message to a partner or replying to a message via reply_to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the addressing modes and the sibling list make the intended use fairly clear. A small gap is not stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for board posts or channel messages).

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