Send conversation message

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With only openWorldHint: true in annotations and no readOnly/destructive hints, the description should explain side effects (e.g., notifying participants, irreversibility, required permissions) but does not. No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency.

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 concise sentence that directly states the core action. No wasted words; it is easily digestible and front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a tool whose name already conveys the operation.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter (body) adding complexity, and no output schema exists to describe return values. The description does not explain how to structure the body for different message types, what the API expects beyond 'per Kommo API', or what the response contains (e.g., message ID). Despite the simplicity of the action, the lack of guidance on the body object and return behavior makes it incomplete for practical use.

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?

The description adds nothing about the parameters. The schema already documents body as 'Message payload (text, attachments, etc. per Kommo API)' but conversation_id is undescribed. Since schema coverage is 50% and the description does not compensate (e.g., by explaining how to construct the payload or that conversation_id refers to an existing conversation), it fails to add value beyond what is already in 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?

Clearly states the action: 'Send a message to a conversation.' Uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('message', 'conversation'), fully distinguishing it from siblings like kommo_conversations_messages_list (list messages) or kommo_conversations_close (close conversation).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., conversation must exist), nor any exclusions or comparisons to related tools like kommo_calls_add or kommo_notes_create. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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