goldhold_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a message is sent, but it does not mention whether sending is irreversible, what delivery guarantees exist, how success or failure is reported, or any permission prerequisites. This is a meaningful gap for a side-effectful tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The recipient constraint is stated immediately after the verb, and there is no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity of this tool — three simple required string parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema — the description plus the schema is largely sufficient for invoking it correctly. It would be stronger with explicit delivery or error behavior, but those are partially covered by the simple shape of the tool and the parameter descriptions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description partially repeats the `to` parameter's recipient values but omits the 'all' option that appears in the schema, and it adds no extra meaning for `subject` or `body`. It does not improve on what the schema already provides, but it also does not mislead.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Send a message via GoldHold messaging.' It also specifies the recipient types, which helps an agent understand the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like goldhold_inbox or goldhold_channels, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation bar.

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 implies its usage by declaring that it sends a message, and it narrows recipients to owner, guardian, or agent name. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. Usage is inferable but not clearly directed.

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