comm_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 only states what the tool does (send/reply) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, error handling, or what happens if the conversation doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists required and optional parameters. It front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, though a bit terse; could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and parameter hints but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the endpoint parameter ('from the wake notice or a bare conversation id'), which goes beyond the schema's description. This helps an AI agent understand how to obtain and format the parameter.

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 'Reply to / send a message into a conversation', specifying a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes key parameters, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on what to provide (endpoint, content, optional replyTo/orgId) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed but their purposes are not explained, missing an opportunity for differentiation.

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