send_peer_review_inbox_messages

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the two-step preview/send mechanism, the need for identical arguments, and that it uses ordinary Canvas conversation messages rather than the native peer-review reminder action. This significantly helps the agent understand side effects and flow.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first states purpose, the second removes a likely misunderstanding, and the third explains the workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the full parameter schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's operation and the important two-step flow. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives among sibling send tools, but that is not critical for this tool's basic use.

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 describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the confirmation_token workflow and emphasizing that the send call requires identical arguments to the preview call, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Send direct Canvas Inbox messages about incomplete peer reviews,' identifying the exact verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from Canvas's native peer-review reminder action and sibling send tools by specifying that it sends ordinary conversation messages.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow: call without a token to preview, show that preview to the educator, then call again with the token and identical arguments to send. It does not explicitly compare against sibling send tools, but the two-step protocol gives clear when and how guidance.

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