agent_send

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that refs remain metadata only and the bridge never reads files or executes text, plus audience visibility and notification behavior, adding rich context.

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 concise, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and additional details separated into clear points. Every sentence adds value without excessive length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers key safety and audience semantics, but misses some parameter details and doesn't mention alternatives explicitly; still adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains the meaning of refs, reply_to, mentions, and audience_kind, which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, body, conversation_id, and audience_value are only implicitly covered, leaving some gap.

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 sends one ordinary chat message through the authenticated session, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'ordinary' distinguishes it from sibling reply/action tools, and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides context for when to use this tool versus a reply: reply_to may quote a top-level message once, while longer discussions continue as new ordinary messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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