Send packed packet

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explicitly stating this is an 'externally visible write to the configured mailbox' (aligning with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true) and noting it 'refuses private or seed packets'. This gives the agent important behavioral boundaries not present in the schema or annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with action guidance ('Use after notch packet pack') and conveys all necessary context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a complete input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description adds the key contextual detail of when to use this tool in the packet workflow. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it leaves the meaning of 'private or seed packets' implicit, which is minor given sibling tool names.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mostly reinforces the schema's explanation of packetPath and to. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'async handoff to a registered local: address in another repo or model client' after 'notch packet pack'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_packet, list_packets, and create_packet, which serve different functions within the packet lifecycle.

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 provides explicit sequencing ('Use after notch packet pack') and a clear use case ('when the user wants an async handoff'). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the placement within the packet workflow is sufficiently clear, and the constraint against private/seed packets hints at boundary conditions.

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