Send Content

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 10-message cap, the 24-hour messaging window for Instagram/WhatsApp, and the side-effect capabilities such as tag/field actions and external callbacks. It stops short of describing permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but these are not critical gaps.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and content capabilities are front-loaded, followed by channel support, the message cap, and the 24-hour window caveat. Every sentence carries useful 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?

For a tool with a complex nested schema, the description provides the key operational context: rich content types, supported channels, the 10-message limit, and the important 24-hour messaging window. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of return values or error semantics, since no output schema exists, but the schema covers all parameter details.

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 the input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only summarizes the message types at a high level, which is the correct baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clear action and resource: 'Send rich messages to a subscriber' and immediately enumerates the supported content types (text, images, videos, audio, files, gallery cards, buttons, quick replies, actions, external callbacks). This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinguishes it from siblings like manychat_send_text, manychat_send_flow, and manychat_send_sequence.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for rich, multi-format messages with full control, up to 10 messages per call, across Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use manychat_send_text for simple text only,' so exclusions are missing, but the intended use case is clearly implied.

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