cigchat_send_text

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

The description adds useful behavioral context: the message is 'real' and the token needs the 'Manage Flow' scope. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not mention other side effects (e.g., irreversibility, possible delivery channels, or rate limits).

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, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, and includes the auth requirement. No filler or redundant content.

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 side-effecting send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too brief. It leaves 'user_ns' ambiguous, says nothing about the delivery channel or how to obtain the subscriber identifier, and lacks any response behavior details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke safely and correctly.

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 only 50% of parameters: 'content' has a minimal example and 'user_ns' has no description. The tool description does not explain 'user_ns' (likely a subscriber identifier) or clarify content format, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 'Send' and the resource 'text content to subscriber', and includes the REST endpoint [POST /subscriber/send-text]. It distinguishes this tool from sibling send tools (send_sms, send_email, send_whatsapp_template) by specifying 'text content' and 'real message to a person'.

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 provides context that this tool delivers a real message and requires the 'Manage Flow' scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_sms or send_email. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given.

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