entangled_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — the call is asynchronous — but says nothing about delivery guarantees, whether the message is persisted, failure behavior, permissions, or rate limits for a tool that mutates shared swarm state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a concrete example. The '[ENTANGLED]' tag is minor noise, but no sentence is wasted.

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, no-annotation mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but priority semantics, payload_json format, sender_agent use, and delivery/error behavior are all absent.

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?

All six parameters have 0% schema description coverage (titles only), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It adds semantics for target_agent ('all' broadcast) and hints at an action value via 'action_request', but priority, payload_json, and sender_agent are entirely unexplained.

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 verb (sends) and resource (asynchronous direct message or task delegation) with a named recipient type (another agent CLI, or 'all'). It implicitly contrasts direct messaging with the sibling broadcast/announce tools, but never names them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 concrete example ('Antigravity sends an action_request to opencode to run a backend test') implies the usage context of cross-agent task delegation, which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over entangled_announce or entangled_broadcast_knowledge, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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