send-dm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details about side effects, success/failure conditions, rate limits, or error handling. This is a mutation tool, yet nothing is disclosed about what happens after the send or whether it creates a new conversation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It uses the standard verb-object structure and is highly concise.

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 send operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context (e.g., error cases), but given the low complexity and full parameter coverage, this is a minor omission.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions, but it doesn't need to since the schema already documents handle and text clearly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a direct message to a user on Bluesky'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-conversations and get-dm-messages which are read-oriented. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that this is the only tool for sending DMs, nor does it explain any prerequisites such as the user needing to have DMs open. The context is implied by the tool's name, but there is no explicit direction.

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