Ask the ASO assistant

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, but the description adds the crucial behavioral facts: it is a background job, it mutates nothing itself, and results must be polled via wait_for_jobs then get_assistant_thread. This is exactly the context 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the propose-only constraint, then the follow-up workflow. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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, and the description compensates by explaining that the reply is asynchronous and must be fetched with get_assistant_thread after wait_for_jobs. Combined with the propose/apply/dismiss lifecycle, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the ai provider enum and scope enum) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the keywords/optimizer scope distinction and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to the in-app ASO assistant for a project') and scopes it to keywords or optimizer conversations. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_assistant_thread or apply_assistant_changes 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?

Explicitly says the tool only PROPOSES changes and applies nothing, instructs the agent to review with the owner, and names the follow-up tools (apply_assistant_changes, dismiss_assistant_changes). It also gives the retrieval path: read the reply with get_assistant_thread after wait_for_jobs.

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