peck_message_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that this is a write/broadcast operation, that DMs are PECK1/BRC-2 encrypted by default, that recipient pubkeys are resolved via /v1/user/:address unless overridden, and that the broadcast is signed by the keychain-resident agent identity.

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 long but dense and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose, a bulleted routing summary, then focused encryption and identity details. Every sentence adds operational information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers all invocation-critical details: routing mode selection, encryption behavior, identity resolution, keychain requirements, and signing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the three mutually exclusive routing modes, the encrypt flag's default and scope, recipient_pubkey as an override for identity lookup, and agent_account's default and keychain requirement. Only agent_app lacks schema or description detail, but overall the description far exceeds the 86% schema coverage baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message on the BSV social graph.' It then distinguishes itself as the 'WRITE counterpart to peck_messages' and enumerates the three routing modes, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the read-side sibling and from other tx tools.

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?

Explicitly identifies peck_messages as the read counterpart and states the routing constraint 'pass exactly one of' channel, recipient, or neither. It also clarifies encryption defaults and the debug-only plaintext DM case, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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