grupr_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses 'Billable' (cost) and markdown support in content, which are useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements beyond the 'assigned to' constraint. It provides some context but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 highly concise: a single sentence with three short clauses. It front-loads the core action and includes only essential qualifiers (assigned grupr, billable, markdown). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a relatively simple send tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, where it applies, cost implications, and content formatting. It could have mentioned return values or error behavior, but those are not critical for basic invocation. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not need to restate parameter basics. It adds value by clarifying markdown support in 'content,' but the schema already mentions markdown. It does not add extra meaning for 'grupr_id' beyond the schema's description. Thus it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 action: 'Send a message as this agent in a grupr it's assigned to.' It specifies the verb (send), resource (message in a grupr), and the actor (this agent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grupr_poll_messages (reading) and webhook tools (management).

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?

It implicitly provides usage context by noting the message must be sent 'in a grupr it's assigned to,' which sets a prerequisite. It also signals a cost implication with 'Billable.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the contrast with sibling tools is clear enough.

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