yougile_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the chatId-to-taskId mapping and group chat support, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, permission requirements, or potential errors, limiting its transparency to a moderate level.

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 two crisp sentences, starting with the primary action and immediately following with the essential chatId nuance. No superfluous information. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core usage: the action, the chatId semantics, and the supported chat types. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of success/failure behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both text and chatId. The description adds value by clarifying that chatId can refer to group chats as well, which is not explicitly stated in the schema property description. This extra meaning elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 a message to a chat.' It also specifies the resource (chat) and provides key scope details: task chats and group chats. This distinguishes it from sibling chat-related tools like delete_message or list_messages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context about when to use the tool: for task chats (chatId = taskId) and group chats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the contextual scope is sufficient for most cases, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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