dingtalk_chat_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the message is sent as the current user and enforces an exclusivity constraint among the three recipient identifiers. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the response contains—clear gaps 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides parameter selection rules. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and recipient selection logic. It lacks information about response/return behavior and does not clarify how to obtain group_id or user_id, but the tool is simple enough that these are not fatal omissions.

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 already describes all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the exclusivity relationship ('三者选其一') and mapping recipient types to parameters, but does not provide any deeper semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 action ('send message') and the resource scope ('to group chat or individual'), with a specific identity context ('as current user'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like dingtalk_chat_send_by_bot or dingtalk_chat_send_by_webhook, but the identity framing helps distinguish it from bot/webhook sends, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 clear guidance on which parameter to use for group vs. direct messages ('发群聊用 group_id；发单聊用 user_id...'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling sending tools (e.g., bot or webhook), so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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