openclaw_chat_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Destructive — triggers an agent turn', which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions wire format version compatibility, but does not cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding essential details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 a tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, the description covers purpose, required parameters, idempotency, version warnings, and destructive nature. It does not mention the return format, which would be helpful given no output schema, but overall it is quite complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that sessionKey is composite from openclaw_sessions_list, idempotencyKey is auto-generated if omitted, pre-0.5.x shape is rejected, and instance parameter has fallback behavior.

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 clearly states 'Send a message into a chat session via the gateway's chat layer', specifying verb (send) and resource (message into chat session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_sessions_send and openclaw_send by referencing the chat layer and gateway specifics.

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 description specifies required parameters (sessionKey, message, idempotencyKey) and warns about the deprecated pre-0.5.x shape, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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