send-channel-message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by explicitly labeling the operation as WRITE and requiring confirm=true after explicit user approval. This adds actionable behavioral context about the safety gate that the raw annotations do not convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds the critical WRITE confirmation requirement. Both sentences earn their place and the key safety information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with fully described parameters and appropriate annotations, the description provides the essential missing context: the explicit WRITE nature and the user-approval confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the confirm safety gate but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action—POSTing a new message to a team channel—and clarifies the acting identity ('as the signed-in user'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like send-chat-message, which targets chats, and reply-to-channel-message, which targets replies.

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 frames the tool's context as sending to a team channel as the signed-in user, which implies use cases where a new top-level channel message is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the team-channel scope and WRITE designation provide adequate routing guidance.

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