intercom_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a meaningful trait: the message is non-blocking. However, it does not mention side effects, errors, permissions, or return value, so it is minimally transparent.

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 a single 13-word sentence that is front-loaded and directly conveys the core operation. There is no redundant or irrelevant wording.

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?

The tool has three parameters including a nested attachments object, and it lacks both annotations and an output schema. The description does not cover attachments, return behavior, failure modes, or usage prerequisites, making it incomplete for robust agent 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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description partially compensates by explaining that 'to' can be a name, full ID, or unique ID prefix. However, it does not clarify 'message' or the 'attachments' object structure, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('send'), the target ('another intercom session'), and the addressing modes ('by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix'). This distinguishes it from siblings like intercom_ask and intercom_reply by highlighting the non-blocking direct-message behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., intercom_reply or intercom_ask). It only states the operation itself with no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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