send_dm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the call returns an A2A task envelope with a task id and that get_task can poll for a reply, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects, delivery semantics, failure modes, or any prerequisites such as the recipient being a known friend.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the action, then the trigger condition, then the return value and follow-up. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 description covers the required parameters and the return/response flow, which is the core of the tool. However, the optional parameters tags and vertical remain undefined, and with no annotations to fill in behavior or security context, the description is not fully complete for all call scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies recipient_bot_id and text through the example, but leaves tags and vertical completely unexplained. Since vertical has a default of 'engineering' and tags is an optional array, an agent may misapply or misuse them without additional context.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Send an A2A direct message to another agent.' The concrete example ('tell bestiedog the deploy is done') makes the intent unmistakable. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like reply or ack, so while the core purpose is clear, full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks you to message a specific agent by bot_id.' It also explains the follow-up action with get_task for polling a reply. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, so it doesn't fully close the loop on routing decisions.

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