start_side_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no statement that this creates/mutates state, no permission requirements, no side effects, no return behavior. The 'Extended:' prefix adds no usable information.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than conciseness — a single fragment consisting of a prefix and an internal class name. Not a sentence an agent can act on.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a near-empty description, an agent has essentially no context for a tool that apparently creates a background composer session. The definition is inadequate for the operation's complexity.

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 (name, parentBcId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name as an internal class identifier ('StartSideChatBackgroundComposer') rather than explaining what the tool does. An agent can guess it starts a side chat, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings or clarifies what a 'side chat' or 'background composer' is.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion information. The one required parameter (parentBcId) implies a parent context, but the description never explains it.

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