Reconcile Ambiguous Sends

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool opens conversations, searches for message text, resolves rows to `sent` or `failed`, and explicitly says 'Sends nothing.' It also discloses the effect on duplicate prevention. This adds substantial context beyond idempotentHint and readOnlyHint.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives essential background, then clarifies safety and semantics. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the two parameters are fully documented, the description covers all necessary behavioral context: the state transition, the ambiguity scenario, the no-send guarantee, and the duplicate-protection implication. Nothing critical 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%, so both `limit` and `campaign` are already fully documented. The tool description provides useful background but no additional parameter-level semantics. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Settle sends stuck in `sending` by checking LinkedIn itself.' It clearly identifies the outcome: resolving rows to `sent` or `failed`. This distinguishes it from sending tools like send_message and status tools like outreach_status.

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 a clear trigger scenario: a `sending` row means the Send click happened but the outcome was never recorded. It also explains the follow-up/deduplication rationale. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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