tool_create_acp_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the message is stored, sent, or returned, nor any side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 reasonably concise; the first sentence states the purpose, and the Args list is structured. It could be slightly shorter, but given five parameters, the length is justified.

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 covers the tool's purpose and parameters but omits important contextual information: no return value description, no error handling details, and no guidance on thread_id usage for multi-turn conversations, which would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including the message_type options and thread_id optionality, adding meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 it creates an ACP-compliant message, specifies the protocol version (v1.14), and lists message types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validation or formatting.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating ACP messages) and lists the message types, but does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or compare with alternatives like tool_format_slim_message.

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