Send a message to a Grok Bot agent

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — that the UI visibly switches chats and types/presses Enter, and that the call blocks until the agent replies unless configured otherwise. It does not cover failure modes such as an unknown agent name or what happens if the timeout elapses.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the visible side effect, then the return behavior, then the safety caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does the work of explaining what comes back (the agent's reply messages, possibly a multiple-choice question). Combined with the safety caveat and the blocking behavior, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, so agent, message, quiet_seconds, timeout_seconds and wait_for_reply are all documented in structured fields. The description only restates the default wait-for-reply behavior and mentions the reply may contain a multiple-choice question; it adds no new semantics for quiet_seconds or timeout_seconds beyond the schema.

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 a message to an agent in the Grok Bot desktop app) and further specifies the mechanism (switches chat, types, presses Enter). It implicitly distinguishes itself from read_messages and answer_choice by mentioning it returns reply messages including multiple-choice questions, but never names the siblings to route between them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: ask the user first if the message would make the agent act outside the app, with examples (email, purchases, applications, account changes). It also clarifies default behavior (waits for the reply) so the agent knows the typical call shape. It stops short of stating when to prefer answer_choice over sending a new message.

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