send_dm_to_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message is PRIVATE and warns about aggressive anti-spam and account suspension, which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., rate limits, failure modes), but the disclosed warnings are significant for a messaging tool.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief warning note, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage warning, and all parameters. It doesn't need to describe return values because an output schema exists. The anti-spam warning adds crucial context, making this fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 compensates fully with an explicit Args section. It explains group_id (conversation ID), text (required, must not be empty), and media_id (optional media ID), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/title information.

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 'Send a direct message to a group conversation,' which clearly states the action, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_dm (which presumably targets an individual user) and other DM-related tools by explicitly mentioning 'group'.

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 clear context: it is for group conversations and includes a strong anti-spam warning ('Do not bulk-call... may suspend the account'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., 'use send_dm for individual users'), so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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