Send a direction correction (the director's core move)

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

The description discloses the full internal process: the server appends the worker's previous conclusion as an assistant turn, appends the guidance as a new user turn, persists, and reruns with the current mode. It also notes the rejection behavior when a round is active. This is highly transparent, especially given no annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy and mixed in language, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically structured: purpose, behavior, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavioral details, rejection conditions, and usage tips comprehensively. Missing formal descriptions for 'tid' and 'maxRounds' are minor gaps, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds significant semantic value to the 'guidance' parameter with practical writing tips ('具体、有序、只做第1+2+3步' etc.), going beyond the schema description. For 'tid' and 'maxRounds', the schema provides coverage but the description lacks explicit details, though the context implies 'tid' is a thread ID.

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 purpose: '把方向纠正作为下一条 user 消息发出去并起下一轮', which translates to sending a direction correction as the next user message. It explicitly labels itself as the director's core move and distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_read or agent_stop.

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 usage context: it mentions that if a round is still running, the tool will reject and advises to 'wait or stop' first. It also gives detailed guidance on how to write the 'guidance' parameter, including concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives among siblings.

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