sage_message_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior: idempotency (retry returns original message_id instead of duplicate). It also clarifies 'one exact' message and local/federated targeting. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the provided behavior is the most essential.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by idempotency detail and a usage pointer. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the send action, idempotency, and a prerequisite for resolving human names. It does not explicitly describe the success return format or error cases, but the mention of returning message_id on retry covers part of that. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the idempotency_key behavior is already implied in the schema and description. The phrase 'caller-authorized' appears in a parameter description but not in the tool description, which is fine. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'send one exact local or federated agent message.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on sending (not replying, receiving, or listing history) and by emphasizing idempotency and the exact message requirement.

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 context on when to use this tool versus sage_find_agent: 'Use sage_find_agent first when only a human name is known.' This is a clear alternative guideline, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with reply/receive variants. The idempotency explanation also implies retry usage.

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