send_platform_message_direct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it calls a specific endpoint (POST /api/platform/send_message), handles media uploads for local files, and forwards URLs as-is. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Notes' section efficiently covers key behavioral details. However, the second sentence about the endpoint is somewhat technical and could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor redundancy in the media parts explanation.

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 complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, some behavioral traits, and media handling, but lacks parameter explanations, error handling, authentication needs, and doesn't leverage the output schema to describe return values. It's adequate but has significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 9 parameters. It only provides semantics for 'file_path' and 'url' in media parts, ignoring 'platform_id', 'target_id', 'message_chain', 'message', 'images', 'files', 'videos', 'records', and 'message_type'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to explain parameter purposes or relationships.

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 tool's purpose: 'Directly send a message chain to a platform group/user (bypass LLM).' It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('message chain'), and target ('platform group/user'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'send_platform_message' (without '_direct'), leaving some ambiguity about what 'bypass LLM' means in practice.

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 provides some usage context with 'This is for sending to a real platform target (group/user), not WebChat,' which implies when to use it (real platforms) and when not (WebChat). However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over its sibling 'send_platform_message' or other messaging alternatives, leaving the 'bypass LLM' distinction unclear for agent decision-making.

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