webex_create_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core send behavior and that text is optional when files are present, but it does not cover authentication requirements, permission needs, rate limits, whether messages are editable/deletable after sending, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted wording, and the destination distinction is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its extreme brevity leaves some useful behavioral context out.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers only destination selection and the text/files relationship, omitting other important parameters like parentId, markdown, and filePath, as well as any behavioral context such as permissions or return behavior. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the space-versus-person destination distinction and the files/text relationship, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb "Send" and clearly identifies the resource as a message to either a space (roomId) or a person (toPersonEmail/Id). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like webex_update_message or webex_get_messages, but the create/send intent is clear.

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 implied usage guidance by naming two destination modes (space vs. person) and noting that files are allowed with text optional. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webex_update_message, nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases.

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