send_message_request_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether declining blocks the contact, if notifications are sent, or if there are rate limits). The behavior of accepting vs. declining is implied but not fully detailed. For a simple tool, this is adequate.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and provides essential context. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It explains purpose, usage context, and the two possible actions. It does not specify return values, but for a mutation tool like this, success/failure is typically inferred. A minor gap is lacking what happens after decline (e.g., is the contact blocked?), but overall it's sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains 'sender' as phone number and 'accept' as boolean for accept/decline. The description's context that this is a prerequisite for replying is helpful but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Accept or decline a message request from an unknown contact'. It specifies the resource (message request) and the two possible outcomes (accept or decline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_message' and 'block_contact'.

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 includes usage guidance: 'required before replying to strangers'. This tells the agent when the tool must be used. While no explicit when-not-to-use is given, the context is clear for a simple two-option tool. It could be improved by mentioning alternatives like directly blocking, but it's sufficient.

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