send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a confirmation message but omits critical details such as authentication requirements, side effects of sending, error handling, or the role of thread_key. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core function, and the second states the return type. Each sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 a tool with four parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no explicit output schema beyond a Returns line, the description is far too minimal. It does not address thread usage, user identification, prerequisites, or failure modes, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description adds no explanations for the four parameters (space_id, thread_key, message_text, user_google_email). It relies entirely on parameter names and types, which is inadequate for correctly constructing calls, especially for thread_key semantics.

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 clearly states that the tool 'Sends a message to a Google Chat space', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_gmail_message (Gmail) and read-oriented tools like get_messages or search_messages.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it (to send a new message to a Google Chat space), but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It does not mention reading messages or other messaging tools, so usage context is only implicit.

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