manus_task_send_message

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It states it sends a follow-up message, implying a write/mutation operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is minimal but covers the core behavior.

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, front-loaded, no extraneous content. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It tells the condition, exclusion, and references another tool for content details. Adequate for an agent to use 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 description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that the 'message' parameter follows the same structure as manus_task_create. However, it does not explain the 'task_id' parameter or provide details beyond what schema offers. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states 'Send a follow-up message to a task' (verb+resource). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'manus_task_confirm_action' by explicitly stating when NOT to use it. Provides specific condition 'waiting_for_event_type="messageAskUser"'.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: when waiting_for_event_type is 'messageAskUser'. Also says NOT to use manus_task_confirm_action, and references manus_task_create for content structure. Provides clear decision-making context.

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