Message the household

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that providers are currently in dry-run mode, that messages are logged only, that '{vote_link}' is replaced per recipient, and that channel 'auto' routes by available contact method. This goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the primary action, the personalization mechanism, channel behavior, and the crucial dry-run caveat are all included without filler. The front-loaded action sentence makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 tool with six parameters and a mutation side effect, the description covers the key operational details: the dry-run state, the personalization token, and the auto-channel routing. The output schema covers return values, and remaining parameters like subject and image_urls are reasonably self-explanatory from their names.

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 only 33%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the critical 'message' placeholder and the 'auto' channel behavior. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'kind', 'subject', 'image_urls', or 'member_names' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving some parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send SMS/MMS or email to household members.' It clearly identifies the tool's core function and adds the distinctive vote_link substitution behavior. No sibling tool performs household messaging, so it is readily distinguishable.

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?

The description implies usage context—messaging household members with optional personalization—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus an alternative. There are no close sibling messaging tools, so this is less critical, but the description also does not mention prerequisites or limitations such as whether all members need contact info.

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