chat_send

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

Only destructiveHint=false is supplied, so the description adds some value by stating the 'already saved' constraint, which implies no server-side upload occurs. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, rate/duplicate behavior despite an idempotency_key being present, what happens if both or neither payload is supplied, or that the message lands in a persistent chat.

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?

Two short sentences with the destination and payload types front-loaded and the node_id precondition following immediately. Every clause carries information; no 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?

The tool is simple (3 optional parameters, mutual exclusivity documented in schema, output schema present so return values need not be explained), and the description covers payload options and the key precondition. Minor gaps remain around idempotency behavior and what occurs when neither text nor node_id is provided.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining node_id to nodes already saved by this account — a real invocation precondition not captured in the schema text. It does not clarify the idempotency_key semantics or the mutual exclusivity beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb (send) and two precise payload types (text message or saved file node) and pins the destination to the account's file-transfer conversation ('我的设备'). That scope makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like write_text_file, create_share, or chat_list.

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 establishes a clear usage context (sending to your own device conversation) and a precondition for node_id ('must be a node already saved by this account'), which effectively rules out using this tool to upload new content. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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