Send a message

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description adds a useful capability list (reply, forum topic, silent, scheduled delivery, parse mode) but does not disclose delivery behavior, error possibilities, or account selection details. The annotation already signals unknown side effects, so the description provides moderate additional value.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates optional capabilities. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits return value information, error behavior, and account-specific semantics. While it covers key options, it leaves meaningful gaps that could impact the agent's ability to use the tool 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 only 44%, so the description should compensate. It maps several features to parameters ('reply', 'forum topic', 'silent', 'scheduled delivery', 'parse mode') but leaves text, accountId, and linkPreview semantically unexplained beyond the schema, creating a 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?

The description opens with 'Send a text message to a dialog', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly differentiates it from siblings like send_file, send_poll, and forward_messages. The phrase 'text message' narrows scope effectively, and the capability list reinforces the primary function.

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 as the main text-messaging tool but provides no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as send_file or send_message_to_phone. The feature list gives context, but it does not clarify when to choose this tool over sibling tools.

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