dsh_interject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses that interject cancels the in-flight turn and starts a new one, that history is preserved, and that ACP's no-concurrent-prompt rule makes true mid-turn steering impossible. It omits what the caller actually receives back (the full turn result vs. a background acknowledgement) and any permission/auth expectations.

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 definition, then modes, then the ACP caveat that justifies the design. Every clause carries information; the closing note on why true in-turn redirection is impossible preempts a likely agent misconception.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the semantics and the important side effect (current turn cancelled). The missing piece is return shape — whether interject is synchronous with the reply or returns after handoff, which matters given timeout_ms can push work to the background.

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% and both enums are documented inline, so the description's restatement of mode semantics adds little beyond structured data. The one genuinely additive point is the idle-conversation equivalence for mode, but the timeout_ms background-expiry behavior is only in the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: injecting a message into a conversation that is mid-turn, and immediately enumerates the two behavioral modes. It implicitly demarcates itself from dsh_send by stating the idle-conversation equivalence, so an agent can place it against siblings without opening the 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?

Clear conditions are given: use it when a turn is running, pick interject to cancel-and-redirect, pick queue to append after the turn, and fall back to dsh_send when idle. The gap is that it never explicitly contrasts with dsh_interrupt or dsh_takeover, which are the closest competing behaviors for the 'cancel the current turn' case.

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