ig_send_message

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-safe profile is already covered. The description adds the important 24-hour messaging-window constraint, which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss. It does not mention rate limits or required account permissions, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the parameter source. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational failure mode (24h window) and the key input's origin. Minor gaps remain around 'account' selection/defaults and rate limiting, but the essential call-correctness information is present.

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 50%: 'account' and 'dry_run' are already documented in the schema, while 'text' and 'recipient_id' are bare. The description compensates for recipient_id by defining it as 'with.id' from ig_conversations, adding genuine meaning beyond the schema. It adds nothing for 'text' beyond what maxLength/minLength already convey.

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 and resource ('Envía un DM de texto'), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented siblings ig_conversations, ig_messages and ig_inbox. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition: only works if the person wrote in the last 24 hours (Instagram rule). It also tells the agent where recipient_id comes from ('with.id' de ig_conversations), effectively routing to the sibling that supplies the input. Nothing is left to inference.

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