native_session_reply_and_wait

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

Annotations mark the call as destructive and idempotent; the description adds substantial behavioral context by enumerating per-profile permissions (network-blocked read-only RunCommand, direct_write vs worktree_write roots) and the deepseek_explicit subagent exception. It does not explicitly describe the waiting/blocking behavior implied by the name, but the policy detail goes well beyond the annotations.

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 roughly 130 words and opens with the core action in the first sentence. Each following sentence covers a distinct policy area without significant redundancy, making it dense but not bloated.

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 this complex, the description covers the essential constraints: exact turn targeting, sole main-model ownership, per-profile permissions, and subagent limitations. The wait behavior is only hinted at by the tool name, and the description does not state what happens after submission, though an output schema exists to fill return-value gaps.

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. The description adds a useful summary of which tool_calls are permitted and restates the sole-call rule for DeepSeek start, but it does not individually explain native_session_id, lease_id, turn_id, or reply_id beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific action: 'Submit ChatGPT's response for one exact pending native turn.' It identifies the verb, the resource, and the exactness constraint, which clearly separates it from the session lifecycle siblings. The 'ChatGPT is always the sole main model' line further clarifies its role in the session.

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 the required condition—'one exact pending native turn'—and gives operational rules for tool_calls, such as 'DeepSeek start must be the only call.' However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings like native_session_continue or states when not to use it.

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