Send message to session

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description never explains what destruction is possible, whether the message interrupts or queues behind an in-flight turn, or whether the call blocks for a reply. 'Live interactive session' hints at real-time delivery but adds little beyond the annotation set.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description omits what the agent should expect: whether the session must be active, whether the call waits, and what happens on failure. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 only 33%: 'agent' is documented in the schema while 'message' and 'session_id' have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no format, source, or constraint information to compensate for the two undocumented required parameters.

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 and target: send a message into an agent's live interactive session. It is clearer than a tautology and identifies the resource (interactive session), but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'ask' or 'apply_task' which plausibly also deliver input to an agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing session from list_sessions), and no mention of when to prefer this over 'ask' or 'apply_task'. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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