intercom_send

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'non-blocking', which is not fully captured by the annotations, and clarifies target resolution by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single sentence containing only essential information: the action, the target, the non-blocking behavior, and accepted target identifiers. No filler or repetition; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description is adequate for a simple send operation, but it omits explicit guidance on alternatives and does not describe what the caller should expect in return (there is no output schema). It covers the core send behavior but leaves some operational context to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains the 'to' parameter by listing accepted formats, but it does not clarify the semantics of 'message' or 'attachments' beyond their names. The schema provides structure, but the description leaves most parameter meaning implicit.

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 a specific verb ('Send') with a clear resource ('direct message to another intercom session') and explains the acceptable target formats ('by name, full ID, or unique ID prefix'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like intercom_reply, which likely targets the current session.

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 usage context by specifying 'non-blocking' and 'another intercom session', suggesting it is for outbound direct messages rather than replies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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