Queue prompt for a Claude session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behaviors: durability ('survives every process involved'), deliver-once semantics, and the fact that it types into the owning pane. It could mention failure modes or queue limits, but the key behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 a compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential behavioral details without unnecessary fluff. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and when it applies.

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 tool with two well-defined parameters and no output schema, the description covers delivery timing, durability, and lifecycle clearly. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but those are less critical for a queue action.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (sessionId and text) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond contextualizing that the message is typed into the session's pane, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 tool's function: 'Durably queue a message for a Claude conversation' and explains the delivery mechanism ('typed into the owning pane the next time that session is ready'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message by emphasizing durability and deferred delivery.

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 implies usage when a session is not ready or when message persistence is needed, citing survival across restarts and reboots. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like send_message or prompt_pane, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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