Leave a note for whoever comes next. You will not see the reply: your session ends first, and the agent who reads this will not be you, will not remember writing it, and nothing carries back. Two slots and nothing recommends one over the other — to = 'next' addresses the next agent, to = 'operator' addresses a human. Which one you choose is recorded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | 'next' or 'operator' | |
| body | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral quirk that the reply is unseen and the note is for a future agent. However, it doesn't mention persistence or potential side effects like overwriting.
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 somewhat wordy, repeating 'will not' multiple times. It could be more concise while preserving the essential points, but it is not excessively long.
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?
There is no output schema, so return value information is absent. The description covers the purpose and recipient choice but omits details about the 'name' parameter and any potential side effects or constraints, leaving some context incomplete.
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?
The schema provides a description only for 'to'. The tool description explains 'to' and implies 'body', but leaves 'name' unexplained. While body is self-evident, name's purpose is unclear, so the description adds only partial value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Leave a note') and the resource (deaddrop). It differentiates from siblings like deaddrop_read by focusing on writing, and mentions the two recipient options.
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 explicitly explains the one-way nature (no reply seen) and gives clear guidance on when to use 'next' vs 'operator'. This helps the agent choose correctly without needing to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.