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. It discloses no auth needs, side effects of sending, failure modes, or per-action behaviors. Irreversible operations like send/react are not flagged.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists actions. It is compact with no fluff, though the action list slightly duplicates the schema's action enum.

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?

With 13 parameters, 7 actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain which parameters apply to each action, per-channel specifics, or return formats, leaving many gaps for the agent to navigate.

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% and all parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description repeats the action list already present in the action parameter but adds no new meaning or mapping of actions to parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (messages/channels) and the verbs (send, react, search, etc.), with explicit channel examples (Discord, Telegram, WhatsApp). It is clear enough to distinguish from web/browser tools, though 'perform channel actions' is broad.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sessions_send. Implied usage for external messaging exists, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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