Edit queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: this is a consumable queue, each item carries a requestId, and replying with that id marks the edit done in the user's window. It stops short of stating that invoking the tool itself marks items as read by default (markConsumed=true), which is a meaningful side effect for what reads like a poll.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the mode exclusion, then the required follow-up. Little waste, though the payoff sentence about reply_in_window restates the requestId handle already introduced earlier.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting well: it explains the returned fields, the requestId handle, and the completion loop through reply_in_window. The main omission is the read-marking side effect of the default parameters, which the agent would otherwise only discover from the schema.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's notion of 'no agent has taken yet' and 'marks that edit as done' loosely reinforces the consumed/unconsumed concept behind markConsumed and includeConsumed but adds no new syntax or interaction detail.

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 specific verb and resource (edits a user sent from the layout-debug window that no agent has taken yet) and enumerates the payload (comment + element facts + drag measurements). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling queue/read tools because it names exactly which queue it drains.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use (edits awaiting an agent), an explicit when-not with the alternative named ('In listen mode use wait_for_message instead'), and the required follow-up ('report back via reply_in_window with that requestId'). Routing is fully specified without inference.

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