enqueue_land

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that landing is serialized and gated by tests, that active claims are retained until completion, and that an external command must actually process the queue. Gaps remain around what happens on gate failure, queue position, and whether enqueueing is idempotent.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, side effects on claims, how the queue is processed, and the prohibition. Front-loaded with the core action and free of boilerplate.

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 and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior and parameter meaning — it covers the workflow side well but leaves both parameters undocumented and doesn't say what enqueueing returns (queue position, ticket id) or how to detect gate failure beyond land_status.

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 both parameters. The description never mentions `branch` (e.g. whether it defaults to the current branch) and never explains `gate_cmd` — its format, whether it overrides a default gate, or what happens when omitted. 'My branch' only weakly implies the branch parameter, leaving gate_cmd completely unexplained.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('enqueue my branch') plus the exact semantics of the operation: serialized, test-gated landing into the integration target. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like land_status (polling), claim, and release.

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 concrete next-step guidance: run `asem queue run` via Bash after enqueueing, or poll land_status. It also carries an explicit prohibition ('Never merge into the target yourself'), which steers the agent away from a plausible wrong action. It does not state preconditions, e.g. whether a branch must be claimed first, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives matrix.

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