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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the asynchronous semantics: a message sent mid-work queues and starts the next agent, a stopped task resumes, and the agent may push further commits to the PR. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect context annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition. The final sentence about commits on the pull request is informative but slightly narrower in scope than the rest, a small inefficiency rather than a flaw.

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 4-parameter open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: prerequisite tool, message-while-busy behavior, restart behavior, and downstream effects. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 75% and already documents task_id, workspace_id, and idempotency_key; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for 'text' or any other field. Baseline 3 is appropriate where 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message on a task') and anchors it to the originating tool ('started with start_task'), which separates it from start_task/delegate_ticket in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other siblings such as get_messages, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts ('an answer to the agent's question or a change of plan') and the precondition that the task must have been created via start_task. What is missing is an explicit 'use X instead' for the case where no task exists yet.

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