send_coordination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at authorization scope via 'relationship's current grant', but omits idempotency behavior (despite the idempotency_key parameter), delivery guarantees, error handling, and mutation side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a simple sentence it is efficient, though its extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than intentional conciseness for such a complex tool.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 5 required fields, nested payload object, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but critical parameter and behavioral details are absent.

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 0% across 8 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond vaguely implying a payload ('structured message') and relationship scope. Parameters like capability, recipient_owner_id, idempotency_key, turn_budget, expires_at, and task_id are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (one structured message), with a clear scope (within the relationship's current grant). It distinguishes from read_inbox by being a send action, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_inbox or task tools. The phrase 'current grant' is a constraint, not a usage instruction or exclusion.

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