Send queued message now

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses the concrete side effects: any in-progress run is aborted, the message is appended to the transcript, and the agent starts processing. It also adds the confirmation requirement, credit-spend warning, and the 'never resubmit unknown outcomes' caution, which are not captured by the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then caveats and the confirmation policy. Three short paragraphs, each earning its place; no filler, though the confirmation sentence is slightly redundant with the confirm param.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, preconditions, and confirmation. It notes the response matches the 'Send message' envelope, addressing the return shape, though it does not detail error/abort outcomes.

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 confirm and account. The description reinforces the confirm requirement ('explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (send), resource (queued message), and the distinguishing timing/scope: 'immediately instead of waiting for the agent to finish its current turn.' This clearly separates it from siblings like queue_session_message, update_queued_message, and send_message.

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 establishes when to use it (to send now rather than wait for turn completion) and a clear when-not condition ('cannot be sent this way on incognito sessions'), plus the editing precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for the incognito/edit cases, leaving the agent to infer the fallback.

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