Send Negotiation Message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the two most important traits: this is a mutation and confirm=True is required (critical, since the schema defaults confirm to false). It stops short of describing failure modes, what the body object may contain, or what happens if the thread is closed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the action and its precondition are front-loaded ahead of the mutation/confirm warning. Every clause carries information.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped nested body parameter, the description covers the safety gate but not the payload contract. An agent still cannot construct a valid body or anticipate the response without trial and error.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies confirm's semantics well, but leaves nid completely unexplained and gives no hint about the nested body object's expected shape despite additionalProperties being open — the highest-risk gap for an agent trying to call this correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sending a new message into a negotiation thread. This implicitly separates it from send_chat_message in the sibling list, but it never names the chat-based alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives one real precondition — sending works only while the conversation is open — which is useful context for an agent. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus send_chat_message or create_chat_without_vacancy, and the pointer to 'hh.ru rules for negotiations' is an external reference the agent cannot resolve.

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