send_template_message

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the behavioral requirement of explicit confirmation, which is not present in annotations and is useful for correct invocation.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words, and the critical confirmation requirement is front-loaded. However, it is perhaps too terse given the complexity of six parameters and nested objects.

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?

With six parameters, three required fields, nested objects, and many sibling tools, this description is far from complete. It does not explain expected data structure, required fields, or how this tool differs from similar send/subscribe/message tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters, but it only indirectly hints at the 'confirm' parameter via '必须显式确认'. It provides no meaning for openid, template_id, data, url, or miniprogram.

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 verb '发送' and the resource '模板消息', making it evident that this tool sends template messages. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like send_custom_message or send_subscribe_message, but the resource type is enough to distinguish it in most cases.

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 provides one important usage condition—'必须显式确认' (must explicitly confirm)—but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many messaging-related siblings. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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