send_to_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the verbatim-only contract, that long bodies are handled by a clipboard channel, and that notifications are batched by the app. It omits failure modes and platform prerequisites (e.g. app running, automation permission), which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by trigger conditions, then per-parameter constraints. Every sentence contributes a distinct rule; the repeated 'no summarizing, no rewriting, no trimming' is deliberate emphasis on the most common failure mode rather than waste.

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 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the behavioral contract, size expectations, and batching semantics. It does not address what happens on failure or whether the ThinkSpace app must be running, which is a modest remaining gap.

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, but the description adds real meaning: `text` must be the verbatim full text of exactly one chat message, and `title` should be ~20 characters versus the schema's hard max of 40, clarifying it is a rough handle the user will rewrite. Only `source` is left to the schema alone.

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 and destination: 'Send a note to the ThinkSpace app inbox on this Mac.' The resource (note in the ThinkSpace inbox) and platform scope (this Mac) are unambiguous, so an agent knows exactly what operation is being performed.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions with both English and Japanese example utterances ('send this to ThinkSpace', 「受信箱に送って」), and gives the multi-note routing rule: 'For multiple notes, call this tool once per note.' It also states a hard constraint ('Never invent content'), leaving little to inference.

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