instructions_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the tool sends an instruction. It does not disclose whether this is a one-time immediate action, whether the agent waits for responses, what side effects occur, how TTL parameters affect behavior, or what the caller should expect in the response. These gaps are significant for an action-oriented 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?

Three sentences cover the action, template identification, targeting, and parameter passing with no filler or repetition. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 an action with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the minimal invocation path. It omits context around responseTtlMinutes, instructionTtlMinutes, keepRaw, comments, return behavior, failure modes, and how this differs from related instruction tools. An agent would likely need to consult other sources to use the tool robustly.

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 the baseline is 3; the description does add useful guidance by showing FQDN examples and explaining the {name, value} parameter format. However, it instructs the agent to target via a 'scope' property that does not exist in the provided input schema, which is a meaningful inconsistency and degrades confidence in the parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send an instruction to devices.' It clarifies the core action and gives the identifying mechanisms (definitionId/definitionName) and targeting options. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'instructions_send_to_device', but the plural 'devices' and the send-centric framing make the primary purpose clear.

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 gives concrete how-to guidance: use definitionId or definitionName, target via devices or scope, and pass parameters as name/value pairs. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like scheduled_instructions_create, persistent_instructions_create, or instructions_send_to_device, nor does it state any exclusions.

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