cigchat_send_subflow

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

Despite no annotations, the description usefully discloses that the operation requires the 'Manage Flow' scope and clarifies that it delivers a real message, implying a side effect. However, it does not mention reversibility, possible failures, rate limits, or response behavior, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint, followed by the required scope. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, and the fact that it is a real message. However, it lacks details on when to use it relative to closely related siblings and does not explain the return/error behavior, leaving it only minimally complete.

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's phrase 'Send sub flow to subscriber' maps naturally to the two parameters (sub_flow_ns and user_ns), adding basic meaning. The schema already documents sub_flow_ns with a description, but user_ns is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Since schema coverage is only 50% and the description does not compensate for user_ns, the score is average.

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 sub flow to subscriber') and the resource/recipient, plus a clarifying phrase that it 'Delivers a real message to a person.' However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like cigchat_send_subflow_by_name or cigchat_send_subflow_by_user_id, which also send subflows to subscribers.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a required scope but does not state any exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers. The phrase 'Delivers a real message to a person' implies a use case but does not address the many related send/send_subflow siblings.

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