intercom_send

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions 'non-blocking' which hints at asynchronous behavior, but no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or success/failure signaling.

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?

Single sentence of 15 words, efficient and front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundancy.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing return value, error conditions, authentication requirements, and details on attachments subtype specifications.

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 descriptions are missing (coverage 0%). The tool description adds context for 'to' parameter (by name, full ID, or prefix) but no elaboration on 'message' or 'attachments' structure, required fields, or allowed values.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Send' and resource 'direct message to another intercom session' with methods to identify recipient. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like intercom_reply, which could be for replying. The 'non-blocking' qualifier adds clarity but is not explained further.

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?

Only implies when to use (sending a direct message). No guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings (e.g., intercom_reply for replies).

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