heliograph_send

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the call is fire-and-forget, the station has discretion whether to execute the step, mode-less steps are refused, and state-changing steps require CONFIRM=yes plus a station started with --allow-actions. The mong these (publish success vs execution success) is a genuinely important behavioral trait an agent would otherwise discover only after a failed run.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, then the async consequence, then the execution conditions. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant constraints appear last without being buried.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the non-blocking contract, how to obtain the result (poll status, read log), and refusal conditions. The remaining gap is that it never states what the immediate response contains (e.g., a run identifier needed to correlate with heliograph_status), which an agent needs since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; all four parameters (env, note, step, estate) are already documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the station does with the step parameter — refusal if no mode is declared, and extra authorization requirements for state-changing steps — which clarifies meaningfully how step and env interact.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Publish a step for the station to run') plus the key behavioral trait (returns immediately). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying it does NOT wait and directing the reader to poll heliograph_status and read the log, which distinguishes it from at least two sibling tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives an explicit post-call workflow: do not wait, poll heliograph_status until terminal, then read the log. It also states the conditions under which this tool is effective (step must declare a mode; state-changing steps need CONFIRM=yes and --allow-actions), so the agent knows when the call will have no effect. Vivid routing to named siblings.

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