Send Support Message

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it clarifies the recipient ('DUAL team') but doesn't mention delivery mechanisms, response expectations, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple send operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 message-sending tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks information about response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The annotations help by indicating this is a write operation, but the description could better prepare the agent for what happens after 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (subject, body, public flag). This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter relationships or usage examples.

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 the action ('send') and target ('support message to the DUAL team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'dual_send_notification' by specifying it's for support messages rather than general notifications. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_list_support_messages' (a read operation), which would have made it a perfect 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over other communication tools like 'dual_send_notification'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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