Send a server notice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the message format and configuration requirement but omits other behavioral traits like admin permissions, potential side effects (e.g., room creation), or error behavior. This is a moderate disclosure gap.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The action and target are front-loaded, followed by the configuration prerequisite.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives essential context but lacks information about who can invoke it (e.g., admin only) and what happens on failure. It is minimally sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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 already has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds value by specifying that the user must be a 'local user' and clarifying the server-sourced nature of the m.text message, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Fully-qualified user ID' phrasing.

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 server notice), the target (a specific local user), and the message type (m.text). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on registration tokens and room operations.

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 provides a concrete prerequisite (server notices configured in dendrite.yaml) which helps define when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the sibling domains are distinct enough to make context clear.

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