send_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool supports markdown-like formatting, but omits key behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, delivery guarantees, or error scenarios. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 17 words. Every sentence adds value (purpose + formatting). No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more behavioral context. It lacks details on message length limits, delivery guarantees, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 50% (only 'to' has description). The description adds value by noting that the 'text' parameter supports formatting, which compensates partially for the missing schema description. However, it does not provide additional constraints or format details beyond that.

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 'Send a text message', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_media and send_location by explicitly focusing on text. The mention of formatting options adds precision.

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 implies use for text messages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like send_media or send_location. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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