send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful trait that sending is irreversible once it leaves ('Irréversible une fois parti'), plus the post-hoc remedy via delete_message. It still omits auth/account requirements, so not 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, then the irreversibility caveat with the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover mutation/open-world traits. The description covers what the tool does, its optional features and its irreversibility. The only real gap is the unexplained account parameter for multi-account use.

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 60%, so the schema documents chat, mentions and reply_to but leaves text and account bare. The description adds meaning for reply_to (quoting) and mentions, matching those fields, but contributes nothing about the untyped account parameter or the text field, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Envoie un message texte') and implicitly separates itself from send_media, send_poll and send_location via the 'texte' qualifier. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 notes optional reply ('en réponse à un message (cité)') and mention behavior, and points to delete_message as the recourse for the irreversibility, which is useful context. However, it never states when to pick this over send_media/send_poll/send_location, so usage is only implied.

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