send

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real value by disclosing the fan-out behavior (a person target hits all their sessions) and the team boundary, but says nothing about delivery semantics, notification side effects, or recipient-existence requirements.

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 tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical clarification of the person-target fan-out is embedded efficiently rather than added as a separate sentence.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers targeting scope, which is adequate. It still leaves gaps around what the caller learns after sending (success/failure feedback) and how this tool relates to ask/answer, so it is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 67%, so the schema documents 'to' and 'session' while 'text' carries only a maxLength constraint. The description clarifies that 'to' can be a person name meaning all their sessions, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Session name or person name', but it adds nothing about 'text' or the 4000-character limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (send) and resource (a note) and clarifies the two target types: a session or a person, the latter fanning out to all their sessions. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like ask, answer, or inbox, which also route messages between sessions.

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 by the description: it tells you the recipients must be in your session's team, which is a useful scoping hint, but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to ask/answer/inbox. An agent must infer that 'send' is one-way notification while 'ask' expects a reply.

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