dsh_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well: it warns that DSH can edit workspace files and run tools, and it discloses that the call returns immediately with no thought/tool logs. It also implies idempotent retry behavior by instructing request_id reuse, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, each contributing distinct value: the core action, return behavior, retry idiom, and a side-effect warning. The main purpose is front-loaded and the wording is tight 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, retries, and session targeting well. However, it leaves the required mode enum undefined and does not explain how the immediate return relates to siblings like dsh_wait or dsh_result for retrieving eventual output, so the guidance is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for session_id ('reuse... for revisions') and request_id ('unique... reuse on retries'), and text is implicitly the task/review feedback. However, the required mode parameter with enum ['queue', 'steer'] is never explained, leaving a critical ambiguity about how a queued message differs from a steering message.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') plus a clear resource ('a task or review feedback') and scopes it to 'the SAME DSH Web session,' which differentiates it from session creation, history, and wait/result siblings. An agent can immediately identify this as the tool for feeding messages or feedback into an existing session.

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 concrete operational guidance: reuse session_id for revisions, supply a unique request_id and reuse it on uncertain retries, and include explicit scope and acceptance criteria because DSH can edit workspace files. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the intended context of an existing session is clear.

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