dooray_messenger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'send message' and does not mention that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, permission implications, or what happens after the message is sent. The confirm parameter in the schema reveals the write/confirmation behavior, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse. It is concise, though it is so terse that it lacks helpful context, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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 simple send-message tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no mention of the expected result, delivery behavior, or when to prefer this tool over sibling messaging/post tools, so completeness is only adequate.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters, including 'confirm' as a required boolean gate and 'operation' as an enum. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('send message') and the target resource ('dooray messenger'), so an agent can understand the basic function. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as dooray_post_log_create or dooray_posts, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description only names the action and target, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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