buzz_dm_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool opens the 1:1 conversation iff needed before sending. However, it does not describe error behavior, ambiguous recipient handling, authentication needs, or any side effects beyond opening the conversation.

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?

One tight sentence delivers the action, the automatic open behavior, and the non-obvious `to` value formats. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 two-parameter send tool, the description covers the key operational fact (auto-open) and target resolution formats. It does not specify return values or failure modes, but the operation itself is clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 gives only type string for both parameters, with 0% coverage. The description adds real meaning by explaining that `to` accepts npub, hex, email, or exact display-name. The `text` parameter is left implicit, but its purpose as the message body is obvious from context.

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 names a precise action, sending a direct message to a person, and the resource (a 1:1 conversation). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buzz_dm_open and buzz_dm_read by stating it sends and auto-opens the 1:1 when needed.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you want to send a DM, and it will create/open the conversation if necessary. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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