support_send_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not the sole source of behavioral signal. Beyond those, the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the message notifies the requester, whether duplicate sends create duplicate messages, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the attached files.

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?

Two short lines with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. The second line is a REST route that partially duplicates the name, and the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy.

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 a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description leaves out attachment handling, required permissions, and return behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile but the description does too little to make the tool safely callable.

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 0% and the schema contains a nested body object plus a fileIds array. The description mentions neither the message text nor the attachment parameter, so an agent gets no meaning for either parameter beyond bare types.

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 ('Send message to ticket') and even pins the REST route, so the action is unambiguous. It gives no differentiation from the similarly named sibling support_gpt_send_message, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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, and no mention of when an alternative (e.g. the GPT-flavored sibling) is preferable. The agent must infer everything from the name and endpoint path.

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