Send IRC message

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral details: 'ok: true means the server confirmed the send — trust it; do not re-read history to verify' and 'A failed or unconfirmed send returns an error, never an empty result.' This adds significant operational awareness not available from annotations or 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 then adds necessary nuance. All six sentences serve a distinct purpose: purpose, text modes, threading, return value, trust semantics, and error behavior. There is no fluff 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 mutating tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage patterns, threading, success/failure semantics, and follow-up actions (using msgid for reply/react/redact). It is robust enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains text vs. lines (single vs. multiline), target (channel or user), and in_reply_to (threading). However, it does not explain the 'notice' boolean or 'account' parameter, leaving some parameters underspecified. Partial compensation only.

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 states the tool's function: 'Send a message to a channel or user.' It distinguishes from siblings like irc_send_raw (raw IRC commands) and irc_send_with_typing (typing indicator) by focusing on ordinary message sending, and it mentions threading with in_reply_to, which is a distinct capability.

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 clear usage context: how to provide text (single line vs. multiline array), how to thread replies using in_reply_to, and an explicit 'trust it' instruction about not re-reading history. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., irc_send_raw for raw commands), but the context and sibling list make the intended use apparent.

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