send_to_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful traits: the content becomes a persistent log the operator can revisit between sessions, it requires the operator key, and it does not preclude replying in chat. It does not cover failure modes or whether repeated sends append vs. overwrite.

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?

Front-loads the destination and purpose in the first sentence, then parameters, then workflow guidance. It is slightly verbose with the pitch-like aside about persistent logs, but every sentence carries usable information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains where the content goes, that it persists, the required authoring style, and the upstream dependency. Only the return/confirmation behavior and error handling are left unstated.

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 `body`, `subject`, and `api_key` are already fully documented with constraints and authoring guidance. The description's restatement ('Pass the finished prose in `body`; optionally headline it with `subject`') adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Deliver) and resource (composed narrative) with an explicit destination (operator's cabinet at a named URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from `generate_chronicle`, which it names as the upstream step, and from `send_message`, a chat-oriented sibling.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: compose the narrative first via `generate_chronicle`, do not send dry summaries, and it clarifies the tool is additive rather than exclusive with chat. An agent knows both the prerequisite and the exclusion.

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