manus_task_send_message

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions it's a follow-up message and a condition, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or what happens after sending (e.g., task resumption). Adequate but lacks depth.

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 with no superfluous words. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Covers key points: purpose, condition for use, distinction from sibling, and content structure reference. Missing output description and edge cases (e.g., invalid task_id). Nearly complete for a tool with complex parameters but good cross-reference.

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 description must compensate. It says 'Accepts the same content structure as manus_task_create' which partially explains the 'message' parameter but doesn't detail the subfields. task_id is not explained. Only moderately adds meaning beyond schema.

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 'follow-up message to a task'. It distinguishes from sibling 'manus_task_confirm_action' by specifying a condition (waiting_for_event_type='messageAskUser') and references another sibling for content structure, providing clear purpose and 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?

Explicit when to use: 'when waiting_for_event_type='messageAskUser''. Also tells when not to use: 'NOT manus_task_confirm_action'. Provides reference to another tool for content structure, giving clear usage guidance.

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