Send typed values through an Actor communication channel

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that confirm=true is mandatory, that channel listeners may execute arbitrary live behavior, that idempotency is 'contextual-write', and that it produces an operation-receipt verifiable with assert-state. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the text is a dense run of metadata tags and repeats itself: the signature duplicates the schema, and 'Safety: MUTATING; writes live game/client state' restates both the opening line and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the required confirmation, the resulting operation-receipt, and a failure-recovery path (inspect tool-schema). Only a note on reversibility/rollback of the written live state 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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the confirm safety acknowledgement and the typed argument shape. The description restates the signature and optionality but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description names a specific action (fire typed values) on a specific resource (an Actor communication channel) and situates it against siblings by naming the prerequisite get_comm_channel(id) and the related create_comm_channel capability. An agent can distinguish it from the many other fire-* and invoke-* siblings without opening the 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?

It gives a concrete usage recipe ('Resolve get_comm_channel(id) and call Channel:Fire(...)'), states the confirm=true requirement, and lists prerequisites (active-client, explicit-mutation-approval, phase=act). It does not, however, compare against alternatives such as fire-connection, fire-signal, or fire-remote, so selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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