components_v2_send

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these hints: validation is performed via validateComponentsV2, the call rejects with VALIDATION_FAILED for illegal layouts without making an API call, and the IS_COMPONENTS_V2 flag is irreversible. It also discloses the return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear bold headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Validation, Returns) and is concise. Every sentence serves a purpose: explaining usage, exclusions, validation behavior, and return value. No fluff 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?

Despite moderate complexity (nested allowed_mentions object, validation, irreversibility), the description covers purpose, valid usage contexts, exclusions, validation behavior, and return fields. The existence of sibling tools like messages_send and components_v2_validate is referenced, and the description provides enough context for an agent to select and call this 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 67% (channel_id and components have descriptions, allowed_mentions does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it doesn't explain allowed_mentions or how to structure components. It does reinforce the purpose of components but doesn't compensate for the undocumented allowed_mentions parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send' and resource 'Components V2 message', and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by stating it's mutually exclusive with content/embed/poll/sticker and by noting the irreversible IS_COMPONENTS_V2 flag. The list of rich layout types (Container, Section, MediaGallery, ActionRow) further clarifies scope.

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?

It explicitly provides a 'When to use' section (announcements, release notes, dashboards, polls) and a 'When NOT to use' section that directs to messages_send for simple text replies. This naming of an alternative tool is exactly what strong usage guidance requires.

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