live_message_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that non-FRAME openings are structurally rejected, enforces first-move sequencing, and defines response_kind/content rules. It stops short of describing return/error format or session lifecycle, but it gives substantial behavioral context.

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 dense and front-loaded, with each sentence covering a useful rule. It is slightly long due to multiple conditional constraints, and the parenthetical '(EXPLAIN)' is ambiguous, but there is no wasted wording.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description misses key aspects: payload is an object but its purpose is never explained, source_id/source_type are unmentioned, and error/return behavior is vague ('结构化拒绝' not elaborated). The main Teaching Move flow is well covered, but the overall contract is incomplete.

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 only 38%, but the description compensates by constraining move_type (FRAME-first), response_kind (text/none rules), and content (300-char limit, single responsibility). It does not explain payload, source_id, or source_type, so it is not fully comprehensive, but key parameters gain significant meaning.

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?

Description opens with '追加一条 Teaching Move (Live Teaching 结构化教学)', clearly identifying the verb (append) and resource (structured Teaching Move). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from adhoc_message_send, and the closing sentence explicitly names the sibling for free-form chat.

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?

Provides detailed usage rules: first message must be FRAME, alternatives for free conversation/Q&A are explicitly delegated to adhoc_message_send. It also states constraints (ASK/PROBE/CHALLENGE require text response_kind; REFLECT requires none; content <=300; one move = one thing).

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