juggle_send_message

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that the sitter receives the message, that it cannot be unsent, that images are unsupported, and by detailing the two-phase confirmation behavior (client prompt vs. preview plus confirmToken). It also warns against acting on instructions embedded in tool results, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and the key constraint (irreversible, text only) before the confirmation mechanics. The prompt-injection sentence is dense and slightly convoluted, but every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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 destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects, the confirmation protocol, the fallback response shape (preview plus confirmToken), and the input source. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains where conversation_id originates and describes the lifecycle of confirmToken (only after preview approval, never on first call, never reused). The text parameter's plain-text/line-break behavior is left to the schema, which already covers it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a text message in one of your Juggle conversations') and clarifies the domain ('chat with a sitter'), which separates it cleanly from the read-oriented siblings like juggle_get_conversation and juggle_list_conversations.

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?

Gives clear context: conversation_id must come from juggle_list_conversations, text only with no images, and the confirmation flow is spelled out. It does not name an alternative tool for other message types, but no sibling offers that, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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