send_inbox_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says this dispatches an irreversible message to a real customer, whether retries duplicate sends, what permissions/credentials are needed, or what a failure looks like. The only behavioral hint is the optional template fallback, which the schema already conveys.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool that reaches an external customer.

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?

Four parameters at full schema coverage keep the structured side complete, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about delivery semantics, error/return behavior, and the message-vs-template precedence. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a customer-facing send operation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the message/templateId conditional. The description adds nothing new about parameter meaning or formats, making the baseline 3 the right level.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('outbound message ... directly to the customer') and names the delivery channels (Telegram, Instagram), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can distinguish this send action from read-side siblings like list_inbox_threads or get_conversation_messages without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'reply' framing against a conversation; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on when to prefer a plain message vs a template, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The alternative of creating a canned response first (create_canned_response sibling) is never referenced.

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