Reply and send

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the server sets headers/subject/recipients/quote, and sending requires owner-enabled permissions plus allowlist compliance. This helps an agent predict outcomes and preconditions. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on failure or whether sending is irreversible beyond the destructive hint.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero filler: purpose first, behavioral consequences second, conditional usage rule third. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-critical information (when NOT to use) 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 9-parameter sending tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the server does automatically, prerequisite conditions, and the alternative tool. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but annotations carry the destructive-safety profile and the intended usage is clear. Slightly more could be said about expected confirmation or receipt, but it's not a major gap.

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 89%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics—it explains behavior and routing rather than the meaning of uid, text, or attachments. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 names a specific action ('Sends a reply to a specific message in the same thread') and immediately clarifies what the server handles automatically (threading headers, 'Re:' subject, recipients, quoted original). It also implicitly distinguishes from reply_draft by describing the send path, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only when the owner enabled sending AND all recipients match send_allowlist, otherwise use reply_draft. It further restricts use to explicit owner consent ('send' / 'pošli' / 'odešli'). This is concrete, actionable routing guidance with the alternative named directly.

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