send_message

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a send/mutation operation but does not mention permissions, side effects, delivery guarantees, or what happens on failure. The agent is left without important behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('Send', 'instant message', 'via Bitix24 IM', 'to a user or chat') contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core operation adequately. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values, error behavior, or whether the message is delivered to an existing dialog, leaving moderate gaps for an agent relying solely on this definition.

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%, with both dialog_id and message already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('instant message via Bitrix24 IM') and clearly states the recipient scope ('to a user or chat'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle messaging.

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 for when the tool is appropriate: sending an instant message through Bitrix24 IM. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool performs messaging, so the usage context is effectively unambiguous.

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