send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send a message') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid recipient), side effects (e.g., message delivery confirmation), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Send a message to a specified platform') and adds necessary specifics (platforms and mechanism). There is zero waste—every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation sending messages across platforms) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, or what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, message ID). For a tool with this functionality, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (platform, recipient, message) with descriptions and an enum for platform. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format details for recipient beyond the schema's examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Send a message') and the resource ('to a specified platform'), specifying the platforms (Telegram, WhatsApp, Discord) and the mechanism ('via OpenClaw'). It distinguishes from siblings like send_email by specifying messaging platforms rather than email. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical sibling messaging tools (none exist in the provided list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, platform setup), exclusions (e.g., when not to send messages), or compare to siblings like send_email for communication purposes. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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