flix_send_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, delivery guarantees, or what happens if the device is not paired or available. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious 'send' 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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important contextual details. It does not mention that the device likely must be paired (given the sibling flix_pair_device) or describe expected return values or failure modes. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% according to context signals, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('Text message to send' and 'Target device ID'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high 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 'Send a text message to a Flix device' clearly states the specific verb (send) and resource (text message to a Flix device). It distinguishes itself from siblings like flix_send_file (sends a file) and flix_sync_clipboard (syncs clipboard), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the device needing to be paired (especially given the sibling flix_pair_device). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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