send_nudge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the reminder references 'original commitment language and deadline', implying the tool fetches commitment data. But it does not mention delivery guarantees, authentication needs, or potential side effects like notifications, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentences with no filler. First sentence establishes purpose; second provides tone calibration. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to cover more ground. It adequately covers purpose and tone, but misses explicit alternatives, delivery behavior, and output/confirmation details. Given moderate complexity, it's minimally viable but not rich.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by clarifying the tone parameter's intended progression ('gentle first, specific second, urgent only on hard blockers'). It also explains that the reminder references original commitment language and deadline, giving meaning to commitment_id and message_body. However, it doesn't explicitly detail all parameters, so compensation is partial.

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 'Sends a contextual reminder to the commitment owner via Slack or email', identifying the specific action, target, and channels. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like linear_update_status by focusing on nudging rather than status updates.

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 tone calibration guidance ('gentle first, specific second, urgent only on hard blockers') provides clear context for when to use each tone. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools or conditions, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not-to-use' criterion.

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