agent_message_action

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It provides no behavioral details such as the effect of a claim (e.g., locking the message), the meaning of lease_seconds, whether actions are idempotent, or what 'eligible' means. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description remains incomplete for a tool with three different actions, a lease parameter, and an 'eligible' qualifier. It fails to explain when to use each action or what 'eligible' means, so an agent cannot robustly determine correct invocation without guessing.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only loosely mirrors the action enum (claim/ack/release) but gives no details about message_id or lease_seconds, leaving these parameters effectively undocumented.

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 (claim, acknowledge, release) and names the resource (eligible message). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like agent_send or agent_reply by focusing on message action rather than sending or replying.

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 implies usage: you use this tool when you want to claim, acknowledge, or release a message. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose one action over another, nor does it mention when this tool is more appropriate than alternatives.

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