firestarter_message

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about what the message can accomplish (refine, change, ask), which is useful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like side effects or idempotency. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is fair.

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 with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action ('Send a follow-up message') and then lists concrete examples of usage. Every word earns its place.

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 messaging tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers purpose and usage sufficiently. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (e.g., response format), but that is not critical for a follow-up message tool. The description is complete enough 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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters (execution_id, message) have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already documents them fully, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensatory information is needed.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Send a follow-up message to an active execution.' It also enumerates the specific use cases (refine search, change requirements, ask questions), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings that handle other execution-related actions. No sibling differentiation is needed since the purpose is self-evident.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('refine the search, change requirements, or ask questions about the options'). It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given the broader workflow. The lack of exclusions is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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