Release or discard a held reporter update

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true): it discloses that this messages a real end user, requires user confirmation, returns CONFLICT instead of double-sending when the message is no longer held, and gives the response shape. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences: behavior and default first, side-effect warning second, return/idempotency third. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape { delivered, skipped, failed }, the error behavior (CONFLICT), and the required human-confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents action's default, bodyOverride's role, and messageId's source. The description largely restates these ('action=release, the default', 'bodyOverride replaces its text before sending') without adding syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (release/discard), the exact resource (one held reporter message from list_reporter_outbox), and names the sibling that produces the input. An agent can distinguish this from list_reporter_outbox (read) and reply_to_reporter (compose new) without opening any schema.

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?

Tells the agent where the input comes from (list_reporter_outbox), that action defaults to release, and adds a hard prerequisite ('confirm with the user first' for a real end-user message). It doesn't explicitly contrast with reply_to_reporter as an alternative for non-held messages, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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