nudge_collaboration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that a message is injected and that it appears as from ORCHESTRATOR (via the schema), but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like an active collaboration, or whether this is a non-blocking action.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the core action and the second adds concrete usage guidance. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter string-input tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the action and use cases are sufficiently specified.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds usage intent but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 action ('Inject a message from the orchestrator into the collaboration') with a clear resource. It also gives concrete use cases—'redirect discussion, ask clarifying questions, or provide additional context'—which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like say or end_collaboration.

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 description explains when to use the tool by listing three relevant scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use cases are clear enough for basic selection.

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