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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the blast radius (every collaborator's agent reads the log and their phones are notified) and that the action is irreversible (a post cannot be unsent), which corroborates and enriches destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. This is exactly the consequence information an agent needs before committing an unrecallable broadcast.

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 sentences, no waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the irreversibility warning placed second so it lands before the agent commits. Every clause earns its place.

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 four params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, and irreversibility adequately. It leaves the return value (presumably a post id, since `supersedes` references decision ids) unmentioned, which is a minor gap for an agent that may need to chain calls.

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 100%, so all four parameters — including the subtle `supersedes` behavior of demoting an earlier decision — are already documented in structured fields. The description's enumeration of post kinds only restates the `kind` enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (adds) plus the resource (a project's shared log) and enumerates the four post kinds, which matches the `kind` enum exactly. An agent can distinguish this from create_task (task creation) and get_project/list_projects (reads) without opening the schema.

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 makes the intended use case clear — broadcast-grade posts (handoffs, decisions, blockers, messages) to a team-wide log — which implicitly routes task-shaped work to create_task. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or stating when not to use it.

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