cigchat_send_subflow_by_user_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does note that this 'Delivers a real message' and requires a specific scope, but it lacks details on reversibility, failure modes, or rate limits. Still, it provides essential context beyond the bare action.

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 brief, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only necessary details (endpoint, side effect, auth scope). Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 sending tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and auth but does not mention the expected return behavior or what happens on success/failure. This is acceptable but leaves the agent without a full mental model of the tool's response.

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 covers sub_flow_ns well but leaves user_id with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that user_id is 'the unique user id from each channel', adding meaning that the schema does not. This partially bridges the 50% coverage gap.

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'), the target ('to subscriber by the unique user id'), and reinforces that it 'Delivers a real message to a person'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_subflow_by_name and send_main_flow by the explicit user_id targeting.

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 usage when you have a user_id to address a subscriber. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_subflow_by_name, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth scope.

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