dsh_inbox_deliver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains trust/auth requirements, the need for from_id attribution, blocking of dangerous shell/exfil patterns, and the local service dependency. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but it provides substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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 compact and information-dense, with the core action front-loaded and supporting details (mode semantics, auth, safety, local requirement) following. Each sentence contributes useful information. Some acronyms and DSH-specific terms are used without expansion, which slightly reduces accessibility.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: delivery modes, trust pairing, attribution, safety blocking, local endpoint, and session targeting. It lacks an example body and does not tell the agent how to confirm delivery via the sibling status tool, but the core calling context is present.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains how kind affects delivery routing, why trust_id/house_id matter, why from_id should be passed, and the fallback behavior of session_id. This gives an agent practical guidance for choosing and filling parameters.

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 states a specific action with a concrete target: 'Deliver a message into a DeepSeek Harness (DSH) Web session via session.prompt.' It also explains the meaning of the three delivery modes, so an agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling dsh_inbox_status, which presumably reports status rather than delivering messages.

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 clear mode-selection context: kind=auto routes based on busy/idle state, steer forces mid-turn inject, and task always queues. It also lists prerequisites such as matching house_id/trust_id when DSH_INBOX_TRUST is set and the need for a local dsh web instance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer dsh_inbox_status or mention alternatives/exclusions.

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