ads_mastodon_direct_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the target mention is added automatically and that bulk messaging is not supported, which is genuinely useful context. It omits that a Mastodon auth/account connection is a prerequisite (siblings ads_mastodon_auth_start exist) and says nothing about irreversibility or failure modes for an outbound DM.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its single-target constraint front-loaded before the confirmation gate. Every clause carries information.

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 irreversible outbound message tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sender/recipient parameter pair, the description covers intent and the confirm gate but leaves auth prerequisites and the account_id role unexplained. Adequate to avoid gross misuse, not adequate to guarantee correct 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the two undocumented parameters are the risky ones. The description restates 'one selected account' and 'confirm=true' — content already present in the schema descriptions for target_account_id and confirm — but never clarifies the critical distinction between account_id (sender) and target_account_id (recipient), nor adds anything about text beyond the schema's 5000-char bound.

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 one private Mastodon Direct status to one selected account' — with an explicit scope limit ('one', 'private'). The clause 'no bulk messaging' implicitly separates it from ads_mastodon_message_batch and ads_mastodon_public_mention without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 precondition 'after explicit confirm=true' tells the agent what must be true before calling, but there is no guidance on choosing this tool over ads_mastodon_status, ads_mastodon_reply, or ads_telegram_channel_direct_send. Usage is implied by the word 'private' rather than stated.

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