send_instruction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key async trait: delivery is not immediate, it lands on the agent's next tool call or at latest before hangup. That is genuinely useful behavioral context. It still omits permission requirements and behavior when the call has already ended.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the timing caveat. Every clause earns its place 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the delivery semantics are covered. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves call_id/text semantics under-specified for a two-required-param 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 0% for both call_id and text, so the schema documents nothing. The description implies 'text' is the instruction and 'call_id' targets a running call, but adds no format, length, or identification detail to compensate for the gap.

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+resource: 'Queue a follow-up instruction for a running call.' An agent can tell it apart from siblings like draft_call, confirm_call, or answer, though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiating sibling.

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 phrase 'for a running call' implies the precondition (call must be in progress), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no when-not conditions, so usage is only implied.

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