send_human_agent_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the HUMAN_AGENT tag permits replies outside the standard 24-hour window. It does not mention permissions, side effects, failure behavior, or return values, leaving meaningful gaps for a send operation.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the key escalation-tag behavior. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple two-parameter send tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical special behavior of the HUMAN_AGENT tag. It could still be stronger with explicit routing guidance versus sibling send tools and basic failure or permission context.

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%, so both required parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a message') and names the distinguishing mechanism ('HUMAN_AGENT escalation tag'), so an agent can infer it differs from a normal DM. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools like send_instagram_dm.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate by mentioning replies up to 7 days outside the 24-hour window, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over send_instagram_dm or send_instagram_private_reply. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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