send_facility_message

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: messages appear in a shared conversation visible to the renter and facility. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, non-read-only, open-world behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence defines purpose, second adds optional context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive annotations plus schema, the description covers purpose, visibility, and optional linking. It lacks mention of character limits or error handling, but these are in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning about linking messages to packages or action requests, but this is already stated in the schema descriptions.

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 sends a message to the facility operator, specifying the recipient and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_facility_messages (retrieval) and list_facility_conversations (listing).

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 messages to the facility operator but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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