Steer a pending native next-turn item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the in-process receipt guard prevents duplicate steering but is explicitly NOT a durable transaction log, and the Harness-acceptance precondition matters for a destructive mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the cautionary notes, with little filler. The phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy and clipped, but nothing is redundant.

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 behavior (duplicate guard, non-durability, Harness precondition) reasonably well. But it leaves the parameters opaque and says nothing about the result of steering, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters (sessionId, itemId) are undocumented in the schema, yet the description never explains what itemId/sessionId are, their format, or where to obtain the item to steer. For a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and object: moving a pending next-turn occurrence into current-turn steering via native updateQueue, explicitly contrasted with 'queued execution' (cf. queue_run). The jargon ('next-turn occurrence', 'native updateQueue') is dense, but a concrete action is named and sibling differentiation is present.

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 gives a precondition ('Native Harness must still accept steering') and cautionary guidance to inspect history/queue rather than blindly replay, implicitly pointing at read_session_history/list_session_queue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-when-not or named alternative for the steering action itself, 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.