messages_send_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description stays consistent with them while adding the useful instruction to state effects and obtain confirmation first. It still leaves the important specifics undisclosed: exactly what is created or overwritten, which recipient identifiers are required, and whether the call is idempotent.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence is generic caution boilerplate that reads as policy text rather than tool specification, and the trailing endpoint/gRPC/socket string is transport trivia that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 destructive, open-world write tool with 8 undocumented parameters (several targeting alternatives, a nested event body) and no output schema, the definition says almost nothing about inputs or expected outcomes. The one clear contribution – the confirmation requirement – is not enough to make the tool safely callable as described.

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, including a nested event object and several mutually-ambiguous targeting options (channelId, chatId, contactId, username, phoneNumber), and the description explains none of them. With zero compensation for the coverage gap, an agent must guess which identifiers are valid together.

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 opening 'Send a scheduled event' gives a verb and resource, but 'event' is ambiguous (calendar event vs. platform message type) and nothing distinguishes it from the many send_* siblings such as messages_send, messages_send_poll, or messages_send_location. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the event lands in a chat, a channel, or a calendar.

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?

It does provide one actionable usage rule – get the user's confirmation before sending because the effect reaches other people – which is meaningful for a broadcast tool. However, it never says when to choose this over messages_send or the other send_* variants, nor what prerequisites (channel/chat id) are needed.

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