mcode_send

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description discloses meaningful behavior: steer cancels the current turn and submits the message as a new prompt, follow_up is rejected because MiniMax Code ACP has no documented mid-turn queue, and sessions that already finished require a different tool. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects and constraints without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core action before moving into constraints, unsupported behavior, and related-tool pointers. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the key operational context: when the tool is valid, what happens with each command mode, and how to discover sessions. It does not describe the return value, but for a message-delivery/cancel tool this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that message is required for steer and ignored by abort, and that session refers to a running turn listed by mcode_running. This goes slightly beyond the schema without repeating its details.

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 action: 'Deliver a message into an mcode turn that is executing right now.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mcode_reply by noting that finished sessions should use mcode_reply, not mcode_send. This makes the purpose immediately disambiguated.

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 when-to-use context: only for runs started with transport 'acp' and only while the turn is executing. It also names the alternative for finished sessions (mcode_reply) and directs users to mcode_running for reachable sessions. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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