bx24_im

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 disclosing side effects, authentication needs, and destructive behavior. The tool description only lists categories and method groups; it never mentions that some actions are destructive, that confirmation may be required, or what side effects occur. The schema's action enum contains some 'destructive' labels, but the description itself provides no behavioral transparency.

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 compact, front-loads the core domain ('Bitrix24 messenger'), and then lists the method groups and multilingual keywords. It avoids excessive prose. The RU/EN translation block is somewhat redundant but does not significantly harm conciseness.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 19 parameters, 50+ action enum values, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description provides only a broad category list and method group names. It lacks return-value expectations, usage context, destructive-action warnings, authentication notes, or any guidance that would help an agent safely invoke the right action.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but because the schema is thorough, 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 clearly identifies the resource as the Bitrix24 messenger and enumerates its domains: messages, notifications, user info, search, counters, recent. It is specific enough to separate this tool from CRM, tasks, and disk siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related bx24_im_chat sibling.

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 use for Bitrix24 IM operations by naming message, notify, user, search, counters, and recent methods, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over bx24_im_chat, bx24_bots, bx24_users, or bx24_departments. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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