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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states two important behaviors: the post is attributed to the connected user and will be marked as agent-written. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the side effect and provenance of the action, though it does not discuss reversibility or visibility scope.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most relevant behavioral details. Every word adds value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what it records, under whose identity, and how it will be labeled. It lacks a mention of return behavior, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (team and text). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics completely.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('something that was finished'), making the tool's purpose instantly recognizable. It also includes distinctive details about posting as the connected user and agent-written marking, separating it from siblings like list_dones. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 implies that this is the tool to use for recording finished work, but it does not explicitly contrast it with list_dones or whoami, nor mention exclusions or conditions. An agent can infer usage from the tool's name and purpose, but that inference is not explicitly supported by the description text.

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