messages

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that send 'sends real mail to a real person' and requires user confirmation, which is a meaningful side-effect warning. It also notes that member_profile returns a public profile. There is no contradiction with the annotations; readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are consistent with a send action.

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, moving from the domain to a scannable action list with useful parentheticals. It wastes little space, though the dense action list could be slightly better structured with line breaks.

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?

For a multi-action tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description covers the main actions and the critical send-confirmation behavior, which is good. However, limit semantics, the notifications action's behavior, and return shapes are unspecified, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent attempting to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It does map actions to key parameters (conversationId for get_messages, userId for member_profile, conversationId/toUserId for send), but it does not explain the limit parameter or clarify which actions it applies to. Content is also left implicit.

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 identifies the tool's domain as 'Ancestry member messaging and notifications' and enumerates the specific supported actions, so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the messaging scope is distinct enough to separate it from them.

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 gives actionable usage context, such as using conversationId to reply and toUserId to start a new conversation, and warns to confirm with the user before sending real mail. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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