Send a location

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

Annotations already state this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and open-world, so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. However, the description adds no behavior beyond the core action: it does not mention delivery side effects, prerequisites like account connectivity, or the effect of idempotencyKey/retries. The description is not misleading, but it is also not informative about behavior.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the essential action. It earns its place, though the brevity leaves usage and behavior details uncovered.

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?

This is a 9-parameter send operation with no output schema and no description of return values or delivery semantics. The single-sentence description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without relying heavily on the schema and sibling names.

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 67%, so most parameters already carry their meaning. The description adds only that place name and address are optional, which is already implied by the schema's required list. It does not clarify latitude/longitude semantics or add value for the recipient/account parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'send a map pin'. This clearly defines the action and differentiates it from siblings like send_text, send_media, send_contact, and send_poll. The title alone is generic, but the description 'map pin' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'map pin', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other send_* siblings, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer the use case from context rather than being told when this tool is appropriate.

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