remind_send_message

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the action CANNOT be unsent, that nothing is sent until confirmed, that a preview shows the exact payload, and how the two-step confirmToken fallback works. This is exactly the kind of irreversibility and auth/permission context an agent needs.

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 irreversibility warning, then layers the confirmation mechanics and the permission prerequisite. Every sentence carries functional information with no 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 send tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation protocol, the non-reversibility, the token fallback, and the pre-flight permission check. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents body, urgent, recipient_type, recipient_uuid and the confirmToken contract in detail. The description adds the permission pre-check context for the recipient but no additional parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 message to a chat stream or class') plus the delivery target distinction. It effectively separates itself from read-oriented siblings such as remind_get_messages by making clear this is an outbound send to real people.

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 prerequisites and sequencing: check `permissions.canSend` on the target first (via remind_list_chats), then confirm before sending. It also names the fallback path (confirmToken) and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE condition that selects between confirmation mechanisms.

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