zas_send_direct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: 'Nothing is stored', a one-minute synchronous wait followed by a job id, a ten-minute owner receive window, owner visibility with the >_ agent mark and agent name on every device, and a cautions note about secrets/keys/credentials. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before firing the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the mechanism and the key timing constraint, and most sentences earn their place. The trailing sentence about the >_ agent mark and agent name on every device is awareness-heavy but still operationally relevant; overall slightly long but not padded.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains both possible returns (transfer result or job id) and names zas_jobs for polling, covering the return contract. The remaining gap is failure/fallback behavior: the existence of zas_send_direct_fallback is never acknowledged, so an agent hitting a failed transfer has no stated next step.

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 both parameters (path, channel) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that it sends 'any file this process can read', which marginally constrains path but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (send) and resource (a file) and immediately qualifies the mechanism: a live device-to-device transfer into a channel in Directo mode. That mechanism distinguishes it from siblings like zas_send_file and zas_send_direct_fallback without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and context: the target channel must be in Directo mode and the owner must press Receive on another device within ten minutes. It routes to zas_jobs for status, but never states when to prefer zas_send_file or zas_send_direct_fallback instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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