huddo_send

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 real operational behavior: it waits out up to 10s of slow mode, and longer waits or over-length messages fail 'with the reason'. That failure-mode and throttling detail is valuable beyond the schema. Gaps remain on permissions/identity requirements and what a successful send returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence carries distinct information (mention syntax, reply routing, slow-mode behavior). No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core send/reply flow and two failure modes but omits the return value (e.g. the msg_ id needed to chain reply_to), permission/identity context, and differentiation from huddo_whisper. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with this much surface.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the '@<slug>' mention syntax for text and the reply pattern (passing a source message's spaceId as room). This goes past the schema's bare 'spaceId or index from huddo_list'.

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 and resource ('Post a message to a room'), which is immediately actionable. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, huddo_whisper, so the agent must infer the public-vs-direct distinction on its own.

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?

Offers practical usage hints ('Mention people with @<slug>', 'Reply ... by passing its spaceId as room'), implying how the tool is meant to be used. However, it never says when to prefer this over huddo_whisper or huddo_invite, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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