Send Text Message

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

Annotations only indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it can optionally include buttons, quick replies, and auto-tag, which is useful. However, it does not mention constraints like messaging windows, rate limits, or what the API returns, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either a functional summary or routing guidance.

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 tool, the description plus 100% schema coverage covers the call mechanics well. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain return values or messaging-window implications, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool is appropriate.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 100% of the 7 parameters. The description's mention of 'buttons, quick replies, and auto-tag' maps to parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 names a clear resource ('a text message to a subscriber'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with manychat_send_content, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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 frames itself as a 'quick shortcut' for simple text messages and directly instructs agents to use manychat_send_content 'for more complex messages.' This provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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