Send WokiToki message

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing outbound data egress ('the text leaves this machine'), a safety directive about secrets/credentials, and the asynchronous delivery lifecycle ('state becomes "delivered" once the peer's bridge confirms receipt'). Annotations only give safety/idempotency hints; the description supplies the operational consequences an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, safety constraint, return/delivery semantics. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause with no preamble.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return value (message id) and the follow-up verification path. Pairing prerequisites, safety caveats, and delivery-state semantics are all covered for a simple 3-param tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the 'to' addressing mode (name or device id) but adds nothing about replyTo or the 16000-char text limit beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Send an ... encrypted text message') with scope qualifiers (already-paired, active peer, by name or device id). It is clearly distinguishable from the list/read siblings which retrieve rather than transmit.

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?

States the precondition that the peer must be already paired and active, and names wokitoki_list_messages as the way to check delivery state, which routes the agent to the right sibling. It does not, however, describe what to do if the peer is not paired/active or name any alternative send path.

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