send_group_sticker

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that stickers appear rendered (not as file attachments), error conditions (uninstalled pack, invalid sticker_id), and parameter constraints (pack_id hex string, sticker_id 0-based integer). No contradiction with annotations.

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 slightly long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then behavior, then usage guidelines. Every sentence adds necessary context. Could be slightly more concise but not verbose.

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?

Covers behavior, prerequisites, and error handling well. However, missing return value description (e.g., success/failure confirmation). Given no output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that pack_id is a hex string and sticker_id is a 0-based integer, and both must match an installed pack. It also directs users to list_sticker_packs for valid values, which the schema descriptions do not provide.

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 sends a single sticker to a Signal group, distinguishing it from the sibling tool send_sticker (for direct messages) and send_group_attachment (for files). The verb 'send' combined with the specific resource 'sticker to a Signal group' provides high clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (expressive image reaction/decoration), when not to use (regular files), and provides alternatives (send_group_attachment for files, send_sticker for DMs). It also explains prerequisites: list_sticker_packs, list_groups, and add_sticker_pack if needed.

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