ofw_send_message

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: draft deletion after sending, potential rewriting of replyToId, and post-send cache population. No contradictions 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 relatively long (150 words) but well-structured, starting with the core purpose then detailing each execution mode. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 7 parameters, multiple modes, and no output schema, the description adequately covers requirements, side effects, and constraints. It even mentions a note in the response for replyToId rewrite. It could briefly describe the response structure, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains the override behavior of messageId/draftId, the legacy draftId constraint, the replyToId rewrite, and the source of myFileIDs (from ofw_upload_attachment). Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description provides essential context for correct usage.

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 a message via OurFamilyWizard, distinguishes between sending a draft versus a fresh message, and mentions attachment handling. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ofw_save_draft and ofw_delete_draft.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use messageId/draftId to send a draft versus providing subject/body/recipientIds for a fresh message, and how to attach files. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct comparisons to sibling tools like ofw_save_draft.

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