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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: replies appear in the room that wrote the original post, and pin=true places the post into the pinned posts of all rooms. This discloses important side effects, though permissions and error behavior are not covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then critical parameter clarifications, then side-effect behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety traits, the description is largely complete. It covers the key posting semantics and side effects. It could still mention permission requirements or validation constraints, but those are secondary.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description nevertheless adds meaningful clarification, especially that from_room is the author rather than the recipient, that reply_to visibility is tied to the original author's room, and that pin applies globally to all rooms' pinned posts.

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 specific verb and resource: '게시판에 글을 남긴다' (post a message to the bulletin board). This is distinct from the sibling tools check_in and mark_read, so an agent can immediately tell 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 explains what the tool does and clarifies parameter semantics, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The posting scenario is implied, but there is no explicit usage guidance.

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