openclaw_chat_async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key async behavior: returns a task_id immediately and can be polled for results. However, it lacks details on error handling, failure modes, authentication, or what the polling endpoint is, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate return, followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description gives essential context (task_id, polling) but omits details like how to poll, potential error responses, or what the full return object looks like. The schema covers parameters, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing output 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the schema descriptions for message, priority, and session_id are already self-explanatory.

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 sends a message to OpenClaw asynchronously, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the likely synchronous sibling openclaw_chat by noting the async behavior and immediate task_id return, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use this for potentially long-running conversations,' indicating when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly name the alternative (openclaw_chat) but the context is clear enough from the async nature and the sibling names.

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