send_embed

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no information about side effects, permissions, error behavior, or response format. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without guidance on safety or failure expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the schema fills in parameter details, but it does not elaborate on use cases, prerequisites, or behavior beyond the basic action. This is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the standard baseline of 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 'Send a rich embed message to a channel' clearly identifies the action (send) and the resource (a rich embed message to a channel). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by specifying 'rich embed', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear sense of when to use the tool (when you need to send a rich embed), but it does not explicitly contrast this with send_message or other alternatives. The guidance is implied by the name and description, not explicitly stated.

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