Send Job Message

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: messages are visible to both the buyer and the awarded worker, which affects what an agent should write. It stops short of noting side effects like notifications or the fact that the optional bid_id scoping is unannotated.

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?

Two brief paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and followed by scope and visibility. The closing clause ('without leaving the AgentTrust platform') is slightly promotional padding, but overall it is tight.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry purpose and usage, which it does, plus the visibility trait. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; minor gaps like notification behavior or message-length limits are not decision-critical.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description implies bid_id's tie to pre-escrow negotiation but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Send a message on a job thread') and frames the purpose with concrete scenarios (clarifying requirements, sharing progress, negotiating before escrow). It does not explicitly name the sibling read_job_messages to draw the send/read boundary, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident.

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 clear when-to-use context: pre-escrow negotiation, deliverables, deadlines, scope changes, and staying on-platform. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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