wirebox_imessage_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'send' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., message delivery is irreversible), permissions required, failure modes, or what happens on success. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the primary usage modes but omits information about the return value (no output schema) and potential error conditions. For a simple send tool, this is adequate but not complete; an agent might not know what to expect as a response or how failures are reported.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds context by explaining the relationship between 'to' and 'conversationId' (reply vs new), but this is largely redundant with the schema's optionality notes. It does not add details about 'identity' or formatting beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'iMessage', and distinguishes two use cases: replying to an existing conversation via conversationId or starting a new message to a recipient. This differentiates it from sibling tools like wirebox_mail_send (email) and the read-only iMessage tools, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explains when to use conversationId versus 'to', giving clear context for both scenarios. It does not explicitly exclude this tool in favor of alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing a conversation ID from the list tool, but the primary usage conditions are covered.

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