code_workspace_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions preview_mode for non-mutating behavior, but does not disclose destructive potential, authorization needs, rate limits, or other side effects. The tool clearly mutates workspace state in normal mode, but this is implicit.

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 starts with a clear one-liner, but the Args section is verbose and lists all parameters in a block. Some sentences like 'propose_changes is normalized to preview chat mode for backend compatibility' could be more concise. Overall adequate but not tight.

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 16 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values, pagination, or idempotency. While it covers the core interaction, it lacks completeness for a tool with many optional advanced parameters.

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%, but the description adds explanations for 6 of 16 parameters (e.g., action normalization, preview_mode, auto_push). However, many parameters like idempotency_key and agent_model_selection_id are left undocumented. The description provides partial improvement over the bare schema.

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 verb 'Send a message' and the resource 'code workspace', with specific actions like 'write code, run commands, analyze files'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from general coding tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like code_workspace_claude_session_action or coding_chat.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., coding_chat, code_workspace_claude_session_action). The description only states what the tool does without explaining context or prerequisites.

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