Send a non-blocking direct message to another coding agent session by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix to coordinate tasks.
Send a non-blocking direct message to another intercom session by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| team | No | Task team; required when multiple teams are shared. Omit for ungrouped contact. | |
| message | Yes | ||
| attachments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / teamAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Task team; required when multiple teams are shared. Omit for ungrouped contact.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.11.0-connect.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations - 'non-blocking' delivery - but says nothing about delivery failure handling, retry semantics (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or whether attachments are persisted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action leads and the addressing detail follows. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 25% parameter coverage, the description is thin: no delivery/error semantics, no guidance on attachment usage, no note on required permissions or what a failed send looks like. It leaves real gaps an agent would need filled before invoking confidently.
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 25%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'to' parameter's accepted forms (name, full ID, unique ID prefix), which the bare schema does not, but it adds nothing for 'message' or 'attachments' beyond what the nested schema shows. Partial compensation only.
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 (send) and resource (direct message to another intercom session) plus the addressing modes (name, full ID, unique ID prefix). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like intercom_reply or intercom_ask, which an agent must choose between.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to message a peer session, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. versus intercom_reply for threaded responses). The addressing-format sentence hints at how to target recipients but not when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.