send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action 'Send a message' (implying a write operation), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, delivery guarantees, or what happens when sending fails. The return type is mentioned but without details about success/failure indicators or response structure.

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 reasonably structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, but it's somewhat inefficient. The first line 'Send a message.' is overly brief, while the parameter list is detailed but doesn't align with the actual schema. The structure helps readability, but the content doesn't fully earn its place due to schema mismatch.

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 message-sending tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested input schema (1 parameter with additionalProperties: true), the description is inadequate. It attempts to document parameters but doesn't match the actual schema structure, provides minimal behavioral context, and offers no output details beyond 'Dict[str, Any]: Response data'. The mismatch between described parameters and actual schema is particularly problematic.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage with only one parameter ('request') that's completely undocumented in the schema. The description attempts to compensate by listing 11 specific parameters with brief explanations, but these don't map to the actual schema structure. This creates a serious mismatch between described parameters and actual schema, making parameter understanding difficult.

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 tool's purpose as 'Send a message' with a verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'make_call' by focusing on message transmission rather than retrieval or voice calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential messaging alternatives within the same domain.

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. While sibling tools include messaging-related functions like 'create_messaging_profile' and 'update_messaging_profile', there's no indication of how this tool relates to them or when one should be chosen over another. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations are mentioned.

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