BetaSeries: messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses HTTP methods (GET/POST/DELETE), endpoint paths, and a notable side effect: deleting the first message in a discussion deletes the entire discussion. It also marks parameters as mandatory/optional, providing beyond-schema behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then uses a clean bullet list for each operation. Every line provides essential information—HTTP method, endpoint, and parameters—with no redundant or filler text. The structure makes scanning for the right operation efficient.

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 (five operations with distinct parameter sets) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description thoroughly covers all invocation details. It omits return value format, but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap overall; the core usage information is complete.

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 input schema only has a generic 'params' object with string values and defers to the description for per-operation parameter names. The description compensates by detailing each operation's parameters, their purpose (e.g., 'to: ID of the recipient member (mandatory if first message)'), and optionality, giving full meaning beyond the schema.

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 it calls the BetaSeries 'messages' API and enumerates five distinct operations with HTTP verbs and endpoints (e.g., 'delete-messages-message [DELETE /messages/message]'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like betaseries_shows or betaseries_friends, which focus on other domains.

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 instructs the user to pick an operation and pass parameters in the 'params' object, and it lists the specific parameters per operation. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, the domain-specific operation list makes the usage context clear.

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