cigchat_send_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially: it discloses that this is a real message delivery and that a specific OAuth scope is required. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what the response looks like.

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 short sentences with the action and endpoint front-loaded, followed by a useful scope note. Every word 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?

As a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits how to resolve the identifiers, expected return values, and delivery caveats. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 description provides zero explanation for either parameter. The schema gives an example for node_ns but leaves user_ns completely undocumented, so with only 50% schema coverage the agent is left guessing what these values mean.

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 action ('Send node to subscriber') and includes the POST endpoint, making it evident that this tool sends a node message to a subscriber. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling send tools like send_text, send_subflow, or send_content.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a permission prerequisite, not a selection criterion.

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