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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses high-risk behaviors explicitly: posting is attributed to the agent, shares nothing with named recipients beyond existing read access, working posts expire on their own, and board posts are excluded from search ranking. It also explains that a reply's id joins the original thread and that close=refused declines a request. This goes beyond the schema's enum names and gives the agent expectations for side effects like attribution and expiry.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information. However, it is a long single block of text without paragraph breaks or bullet structure, which makes it harder to scan for an agent deciding among kind values. The length is justified by the complexity, but the structure could be improved with visual separation of the four kinds.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, all four kinds, threading semantics, closing semantics, sharing semantics, attribution, expiry, and search behavior. It also references sibling tools list_org_people and list_org_folders to resolve ambiguities about names and share ids. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3 and the description needs only to add value beyond the schema's param docs. The description does add semantic nuance, e.g., reply_to accepts an 8-character prefix, close pairs with reply_to, and expires_in_hours is for working claims. However, most parameters are already well described in the schema, so the added value is moderate rather than transformative.

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 — 'Add to the board on a folder or document' — and then elaborates the four kinds of posts and their distinct intents (context, request, inconsistency, working). This distinguishes post_org_board from all siblings, especially read_org_board, because the description positions it as the writing counterpart, while the schema and sibling list make the pairing apparent. The enumeration of kinds adds purpose clarity beyond a generic 'post something' statement.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: when to use kind=context, kind=request, kind=inconsistency, kind=working, and when to use reply_to instead of starting a thread. It also explains when close=closed vs close=refused applies, and when to pass expires_in_hours. This is richer conditional guidance than most tool descriptions, and it routes the agent away from overuse by saying 'naming someone shares NOTHING with them' and 'Posts are never search-ranked'.

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