remind_send_message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: delivery reaches real people, the action CANNOT be unsent, nothing is sent until confirmed, and the exact confirmation protocol (preview + confirmToken round-trip) is described.

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-loaded with the core action and its irreversibility, then the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; only the parenthetical MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference is slightly extraneous.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the safety-critical pieces: irreversibility, the two-phase confirmation contract, the fallback token flow, and the pre-flight permission check. An agent has enough to call it correctly and 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. The description goes beyond the schema by framing confirmToken as part of a named two-step protocol and tying recipient_uuid to a prior permission check, adding workflow meaning to the parameters.

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+resource ('Send a message to a chat stream or class') and distinguishes the two recipient types. It is clearly separable from siblings like remind_list_chats and remind_get_messages, which read rather than send.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to check `permissions.canSend` via remind_list_chats first, and names the alternative confirmation paths (client elicitation vs. two-step token fallback). The when-to-use conditions are fully spelled out.

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