bili_dm_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it warns this sends a REAL irreversible DM, notes the 500-char limit, the required stable unique action_id, and the crucial caveat that there is no recipient read receipt ('unknown does not mean unread or read'). It omits rate-limit and error/retry behavior, but the core safety and side-effect profile is disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core action and account context, then layers constraints and caveats in compact sentences with no filler. It is dense but every clause addresses a real operational concern; slightly telegraphic phrasing reduces readability marginally.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the essential safety, formatting, and idempotency concerns an agent needs before invoking. Minor gaps around failure/error handling remain, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 0% across all 3 params, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains receiver_uid accepts a decimal string or legacy safe integer, clarifies returned IDs are strings, states the 500-char text cap, and stresses action_id must be stable and unique. These add genuine meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 ('Send ONE real text DM') and pins the account context ('process-pinned account'). An agent can immediately distinguish this write action from read siblings like bili_dm_history or bili_dm_sessions without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: 'Never auto resend unknown/prepared; inspect history and action_status first' and 'No automatic historical replies', which effectively routes to bili_dm_history and bili_dm_action_status. Clear context is provided, though the alternatives are named indirectly via concepts rather than exact tool names.

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