Send a message to an Oase

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: default oase selection, thread-post semantics (one level deep, root resolution, auto-resolution of reply ids). It does not describe return values or potential errors, but these are not strictly expected for a send operation and the threading details are thorough.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailed threading rules. It is efficient without redundant phrasing; each sentence contributes to operational clarity.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers default oase behavior, threading constraints, and explicit use-case guidance. Missing details like message length limits are minor and not essential for correct invocation; markdown support is mentioned.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the default behavior for oase_id, the validation that thread_id must be a main-chat message, and auto-resolution logic — all of which clarify usage conditions not evident from the schema alone.

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 markdown chat message into an oase') with a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like send_post (which sends posts, not chat messages). The mention of threading further separates it from read_messages and react_to_message.

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 explicit guidance on when to use thread_id (to reply to a specific message or continue a conversation) and explains the default behavior when oase_id is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparisons, but the channel-specific language ('oase', 'chat message') is sufficient to infer posting vs. messaging contexts.

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