sqs_send_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'emulated' qualifier and says nothing about duplicate sends (non-idempotent), failure behavior for a missing queue, or what a send returns, leaving the mutation semantics largely unexplained.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action leading and no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects how little is said rather than disciplined editing.

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 two-required-parameter write tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at least cover queue identification, expected return (e.g., message ID), and preconditions. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently beyond the trivial case.

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 0%, so both parameters ('queue' and 'message') are documented only by name. The description's 'text message' hints that 'message' is a string body, but it never clarifies whether 'queue' is a name, URL, or ARN, nor any size or format limits.

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 gives a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('text message to emulated SQS'), which distinguishes it from siblings like sqs_receive_messages and sqs_delete_message without naming them. The scope is unambiguous, though it never states it targets a single queue per call.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the queue must already exist or be created with sqs_create_queue), and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. An agent must infer the entire workflow from the verb alone.

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