cigchat_send_subflow_by_name

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

The description discloses that it 'Delivers a real message to a person' and requires a specific token scope, providing some transparency about impact and auth. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or subscriber opt-out considerations, and with no annotations the description carries the full burden.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and every word contributes meaningful information. 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and auth requirement but lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral caveats. With no annotations and no output schema, it is insufficient for confident invocation, particularly for a tool that sends real messages to people.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain user_ns or the expected format of flow_name. The only hint is the phrase 'flow name', leaving both parameters semantically unclear.

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 by flow name' and includes the HTTP endpoint for confirmation. It distinguishes from siblings like cigchat_send_subflow_by_user_id by specifying 'by flow name' and 'subscriber'.

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 such as send_subflow_by_user_id or send_main_flow. The only contextual information is a requirement for the 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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