a4a_dialogue_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 32768-byte cap, the mandate prerequisite, idempotency semantics via operation_id, and the important caveat that relay acceptance does not confirm peer receipt or processing. It omits error/failure behavior and what a lease token is, keeping it from a 5.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and its hard limits, followed by the non-obvious semantics. Every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions and idempotency but leaves gaps: it never explains how to acquire the lease token, and only hints at return values via 'return their state'. Adequate, but an agent could still call it wrongly on the lease path.

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%, so the description must compensate for three bare parameters. It explains operation_id semantics (stable, same-text reuse) and the text size limit, but lease_token is only alluded to as 'a lease' with no explanation of how to obtain or scope 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Send ... UTF-8 bytes') plus the mechanism used ('using a lease and a stable operation_id'), which is distinctive from siblings like a4a_send_private or a4a_reply. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the non-dialogue send paths, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives real conditions: only an existing owner mandate is used, and reusing an operation_id requires identical text. It also says uncertain or accepted operations return state without sending, which tells the agent when calling is safe. There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to a4a_dialogue_lease or a4a_send_private, so it falls just short of a 5.

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