queue_add

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the baseline is covered. The description adds genuine queue semantics: an auto item is safe to run unattended while a needs_me item blocks until the user acts, which is real behavioral context. It omits what happens on duplicate submissions (idempotentHint is false) and what is returned on success.

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 compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded and the flag semantics packed into a single parenthetical; no sentence is wasted. The parenthetical structure maps cleanly onto the two boolean parameters an agent must reason about.

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 three-parameter, non-destructive enqueue tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, why to use it, and how to set both behavioral flags. Only the non-idempotent duplicate behavior and the interaction between the two flags remain unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does define the two non-obvious booleans precisely (auto = safe to run unattended; needs_me = blocked on a user action). The `text` parameter is self-evident and needs no elaboration. The one gap is that it never states whether auto and needs_me are mutually exclusive or what the default is when both are omitted.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Add a follow-up to the work queue") and frames the intent as an alternative to interrupting the user, which is a meaningful scoping statement. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as queue_next, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

"instead of asking the user" gives a clear trigger condition for choosing this tool over just replying, and the auto/needs_me definitions further clarify when an item should be queued in each mode. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. queue_next) or stating when not to enqueue.

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