Chat Send

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: the send is asynchronous and returns sent:true with pending status, not a business ACK; cooldowns may reject; each accepted send creates a new message; and events_poll must be consulted for actual results. This substantially helps an agent avoid incorrect assumptions.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose, then flows into usage, behavioral caveats, and return semantics. Minor redundancy exists between 'do not retry blindly' and 'never blindly resend', but overall every major sentence adds necessary information.

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 mutating, asynchronous tool with a small schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, authentication, failure modes, async dispatch semantics, return envelope, and follow-up steps via events_poll. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret responses appropriately.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description reinforces that type is a category rather than a role grant, but this is already present in the schema's type description. No new parameter-level semantics are added 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post one campaign chat message as narration or player dialogue.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly routing history inspection to chat_read and dice rolling to dice_roll.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: use chat_read for history, use dice_roll for dice rather than sending text as a roll. It also warns against blind retries and directs follow-up through events_poll, giving an agent clear decision boundaries.

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