firestarter_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds a precondition: the execution must be 'active'. It also discloses the kinds of messages supported and the intent to modify or query an ongoing execution. This goes slightly beyond annotations but lacks detailed effects or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by concrete use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple tool with two well-described parameters, clear annotations, and no output schema, this description covers the essentials. It explains the action, the target state (active execution), and typical uses. It could mention response behavior or errors, but those are not required for invoking the tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (execution_id and message) are already described in the schema. The description reinforces the message parameter's purpose via examples like 'refine the search' and 'change requirements', but does not add new semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the action: 'Send a follow-up message to an active execution.' This is a specific verb-plus-resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like firestarter_status or firestarter_check. It also adds scope by mentioning refining the search, changing requirements, or asking questions about options.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to refine the search, change requirements, or ask questions about the options.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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