dsh_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return payload (afterSeq) and implies a non-blocking enqueue-then-poll model, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, what happens if the session is mid-turn, or whether queued messages can be retracted.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the return value and its downstream use. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the key return field and how to consume it, which is exactly the gap that would otherwise exist. Remaining omissions (auth, error behavior, queue-vs-steer selection) are modest for a three-parameter messaging tool.

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 sessionId, text, and the queue/steer mode semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — sending a user message to a Session — which is clearly distinct from the read/wait/cancel siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over dsh_open_session), so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 clear forward context: the returned afterSeq should be handed to dsh_wait and dsh_read 'to see only the new work,' which tells the agent how this tool fits into the workflow. It does not state when-not to use it or how dsh_send relates to dsh_cancel, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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