send_sms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any side effects, failure modes, required permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. An agent cannot anticipate how the SMS send behaves if it fails or what constitutes success.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and channel. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 send operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing details include what the response will be, how to interpret success/failure, any rate limits, and the exact role of 'destination' (sender number vs. name). This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are present but terse. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the distinction between 'number' and 'destination' or the expected format for sender names. Since the schema already documents each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 SMS') and the resource ('via MTS Exolve'), distinguishing it from siblings like send_viber_message by specifying the channel. However, it does not elaborate on the specific service context or the exact meaning of 'destination', leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sms_status or send_viber_message. There is no mention of prerequisites like number availability, authentication, or fallback conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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