cigchat_send_main_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context by noting the message is 'real' and requires the 'Manage Flow' scope, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or return behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the endpoint reference adds useful precision without bloat.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential action and a scope caveat. However, it omits what user_ns should contain and what happens after sending, leaving the context slightly incomplete.

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 zero description for the required user_ns parameter, and the description never references it directly. 'To subscriber' only implicitly suggests user_ns identifies the recipient, which is insufficient given 0% schema coverage.

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 the verb and resource: 'Send main flow to subscriber' and further clarifies 'Delivers a real message to a person.' This distinguishes it from siblings like cigchat_send_subflow and cigchat_send_text, which handle different message types.

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 its use for delivering the main flow but offers no explicit comparison to alternatives like send_subflow or send_text. The scope requirement ('Requires the Manage Flow scope') is a prerequisite, not guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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