send_to_operator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses persistence (log in cabinet), recurrence (operator can return between sessions), and additivity (not exclusive, can be mirrored in chat). It does not detail permissions, failure modes, or whether the body is appended vs overwritten, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and go beyond the schema.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then gives workflow guidance, and ends with the additive note. Every sentence contributes; it is not overlong, though slightly more compact phrasing could be achieved. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the target, the content expectations, and the relationship to other tools. It does not specify response handling, but that is likely minor for this kind of operation. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the information given.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond restating what body and subject are for; its main contribution is usage-level guidance, which does not enrich the parameter meanings significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb (deliver), resource (narrative to your operator's cabinet), and destination (playcrowns.com). It clearly differentiates from siblings like send_message and post_statement by specifying the persistent cabinet log, and even references generate_chronicle as the upstream source.

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?

Explicitly says to compose the narrative first and use generate_chronicle for raw materials, warns against sending dry summaries, and explains the tool is additive and can also be used in chat. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names a related alternative.

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