send_message_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the two-phase safety mechanism (preview token, confirm=true, exact batch required) and implies preview does not send. It does not describe failure modes, token expiry, or send results, but the core behavioral safeguard is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences and immediately front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the critical preview/send workflow. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-mode batch messaging tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow well. The main gap is that it does not describe what the send call returns or what happens on unsuccessful validation, but the schema and the preview-token explanation provide enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how approval_token, confirm, and items interact: preview returns a token, and sending requires the same batch plus confirm=true plus that token. This helps the agent correctly sequence calls.

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 function: 'Preview or send a reviewed SMS/iMessage batch.' It specifies the resource (batch of messages), the two distinct operations (preview vs send), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling tool send_message by focusing on batch operations.

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 operational context: preview first to obtain an approval token, then send with confirm=true and the matching token. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the batch-focused workflow and mention of 'the same exact batch' give sufficient usage guidance.

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