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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: the message is shown to the user, status signals lifecycle state to the requesting user, and "failed" requires an explanation. It does not say whether "done" is terminal or whether further replies are accepted.

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 core action is stated in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries operational meaning rather than restating the title. The trailing sentence is a fragment ("skill names the skill you followed, or a list of them") and the status rules are packed into a dense run-on, which costs some readability.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the parts an agent would otherwise get wrong: status semantics, failure messaging, and the no-change convention. Missing pieces are minor (requestId meaning, what the call returns, whether the request closes after "done").

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 only 25% (only `skill` is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does for `status` and `message` by defining each enum value and the required "No change:" message convention. `requestId` is left unexplained, and the description adds nothing to the schema's own `skill` description.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: "Posts a message to the user in Xodia for a request." That distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings and from reply_to_comment by scoping it to a request, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 explicit decision rules for each status value: "working" for progress, "done" when finished, "failed" only if you tried and could not finish, plus a special rule mapping deliberate no-change outcomes to "done" with a "No change:" prefix. It never states when to prefer reply_to_request over reply_to_comment, which is the one real gap.

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