cigchat_send_fb_utility_template_by_user_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that this 'Delivers a real message to a person,' which is a crucial behavioral trait and heightens the stakes of using it. However, it does not mention reversibility, potential side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The warning is valuable but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, succinct, and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately conveys the action, the second adds the critical 'real message' warning and required scope. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has a nested content object with multiple subfields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain how to assemble the content, what a 'utility message template' is, how params map to placeholders, or what response to expect. It only covers the high-level action and a prerequisite. Given the complexity of the schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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?

The schema provides structure but zero descriptions on main properties (content, user_id). The description partially clarifies that user_id is a user identifier via the operation name and path, but it does not explain the content object's fields (lang, name, params, use_default_values) at all. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter meaning beyond what the name implies. This leaves the agent guessing about how to construct valid content.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Send'), resource ('Facebook utility message template'), and recipient ('subscriber by user id'). It also adds the important operational note that it 'Delivers a real message to a person,' which distinguishes it from mere template management or inspection. The name and path include 'by_user_id', further differentiating it from sibling send/broadcast variants.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to send a real Facebook utility template to a specific user identified by user_id. It also states a prerequisite scope ('Manage Flow'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as cigchat_send_fb_utility_template (likely a different identifier) or broadcast variants, nor does it give examples of when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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