xmpp_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key restriction (recipient cannot be overridden) and explains the request_id correlation mechanism, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or delivery semantics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and immediately provides a necessary constraint and a valuable usage tip. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 send operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action, the fixed recipient restriction, and request_id usage. It lacks authentication or error-handling context, but the output schema likely documents return values, and sibling tools provide workflow 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 0%, but the description compensates by clarifying the text parameter as the message content through 'Send text' and explaining request_id's purpose for response correlation. It does not specify formatting constraints for text, but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 explicitly states 'Send text to the single configured allowlisted JID,' providing a clear verb, object, and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (polling, status, chat state) by focusing on the sending action and highlights the fixed recipient constraint.

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 clearly implies the tool is for sending outgoing messages, which is distinct from the sibling polling and waiting tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It provides specific guidance for request_id ('Reuse request_id to correlate a response'), though it lacks when-not-to-use exclusions.

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