send_chat_message

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 mentions supported features (text/markdown formatting, mentions, importance levels) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if messages are editable/deletable after sending, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from capabilities. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized and clear.

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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. For a chat messaging tool with no structured safety or output info, this is insufficient.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing supported features (formatting, mentions, importance) that correspond to parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send a message to a specific chat conversation.' It specifies the action (send) and resource (message to chat conversation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_channel_message' which targets channels. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'reply_to_channel_message' or other messaging tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'send_chat_message' over 'send_channel_message' or 'reply_to_channel_message', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing chat. Without any usage context or exclusions, this scores a 2.

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