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

Annotations mark this as a non-idempotent, non-read-only write, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing that the reply is persisted in the room and remembered. That explains the state side effects that the hints only imply, though it doesn't mention failure behavior for unknown members.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one behavioral fact an agent couldn't otherwise know. Zero waste.

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 write tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the core action and the persistence side effect. It omits what is returned, whether the member must already hold a declared seat, and how to enumerate valid names.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gives a concrete example value for 'member' ('Critic'), which is genuinely useful, but 'ask' is left entirely to inference from the verb and neither parameter's length constraints or format are explained.

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: asking exactly one board member by name. The phrase 'one board member' implicitly contrasts with ask_room, but the sibling tool is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent's inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'one board member' framing suggests this is for targeting a specific persona rather than the whole room. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of list_members to discover valid names.

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