hub_queue_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: the storage path, the append action, and the delivery semantics including mesh-synced peers. It doesn't cover permissions, idempotency, or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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: the first states the action and location, the second states the delivery behavior. It's front-loaded, information-dense, and has no filler.

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?

The description covers what happens, where it happens, and how delivery works, which is sufficient for a simple queue write. It doesn't mention return/error behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical here.

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 schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, including role, from, and task. The description adds little beyond calling the payload a 'message,' so it doesn't materially improve parameter understanding beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('a role's queue') while also naming the delivery target and the file path. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like hub_queue_wait, which consumes messages.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool for cross-agent/cross-node handoffs and explains that messages go to whoever calls hub_queue_wait. It doesn't mention alternative tools for other messaging patterns, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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