send_conversation

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It confirms a write operation (consistent with destructiveHint=true) and mentions 'one or more recipients', but does not disclose potential side effects like notifications, permission requirements, or error conditions. Annotations already signal mutation, so the bar is partially met.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a simple tool.

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 has no output schema and the input schema fully covers parameters, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., success/failure responses, constraints on recipients). However, annotations provide some context (destructiveHint, openWorldHint). Overall, it is minimally adequate but could be more informative.

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 input schema describes all three parameters (recipients, subject, body) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema's descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('new conversation message'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_conversation' (retrieve) and 'list_conversations' (list).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'send_conversation' is distinct from 'post_discussion_entry' or 'comment_on_submission', no usage context or exclusions are offered, leaving the agent to infer from the name and parameters.

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