messages_send_interactive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/external-reach profile is covered structurally. The description adds a real behavioral caution about the message reaching other people and requiring user confirmation, but says nothing about delivery semantics, required permissions, or failure behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but the generic safety sentence and the endpoint/gRPC/socket parenthetical add bulk that is not actionable for tool selection. Nothing is wildly verbose, but the second sentence does not clearly earn its place.

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 9-parameter, deeply nested tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin; an agent cannot determine how to address a recipient or what the disabled/replyTo fields do. The interactive content shape is the only area partially covered.

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 9 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only gestures at the 'buttons' and 'list' content of the `interactive` object; the addressing parameters (channelId, username, phoneNumber, chatId, contactId) and replyToMessageId are entirely unexplained.

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 resource: sending quick-reply buttons and/or a structured list. This distinguishes it from the plain messages_send and the sibling send_* variants (poll, media, location) without needing to name them, though it never explicitly contrasts with those alternatives.

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 only usage direction is a generic safety admonition ('say exactly what will happen and get the user's confirmation first'), which reads as injected boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance. Nothing says when to prefer interactive buttons/lists over messages_send, messages_send_poll, or messages_reply.

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