sage_message_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses retry behavior (original message_id returned, no duplicate), return-value behavior (inbox snapshot), the non-claiming nature of that snapshot, and the race condition it closes. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause earns its place: send semantics, idempotency behavior, find_agent prerequisite, and the inbox snapshot/race guidance. There is no filler or redundant 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 send tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: how to address recipients, prerequisite resolution, idempotent retry, and successful-return behavior. It omits failure/error behavior and permission caveats, but the described success path is thorough enough for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for idempotency_key by explaining exactly what happens on retry (original message_id returned instead of duplicate), which is not fully captured by the schema's 'reused only when retrying' phrasing.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Idempotently send one exact local or federated agent message.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sage_message_reply, sage_messages_receive, and sage_find_agent by emphasizing exact-send semantics and idempotency.

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?

It explicitly directs to use sage_find_agent first when only a human name is known, and explains when the inbox snapshot should be consulted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer sage_message_reply or when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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