team_time_leave_agent_message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely non-redundant delivery semantics: the note is 'durable', it reaches chats that are idle or offline, and it will not block awaiting a response. It does not warn that repeat sends create duplicate notes (consistent with idempotentHint=false but unstated).

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core behaviour front-loaded and the negative constraint appended as a qualifier. Every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least say what a successful send yields (message ID? nothing?) and whether delivery is guaranteed — it says neither. For a non-idempotent, open-world mutation with four undocumented parameters, the definition is adequate to recognize the tool but thin for calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails: 'task-scoped' hints at taskId, but senderRunId versus recipientRunId — the most error-prone distinction, since the agent must supply its own run ID — is never explained. Nothing is said about the 2000-character body limit or the UUID/pattern constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('leave a durable task-scoped note') plus the delivery target ('linked chat, including an idle/offline chat'), which is far more concrete than a tautology. It implicitly separates itself from interactive siblings by declaring it does not start a turn, though it never names ask_agent or wait_agent_reply explicitly.

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?

'Does not start a turn or wait for a reply' functions as an explicit when-not clause, and 'including an idle/offline chat' gives the condition that favours this tool over a live exchange. What is missing is a named alternative ('use team_time_ask_agent when you do need an answer'), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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