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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds behavioral details: 'immediately', 'marked as created via an AI agent', 'visible to project members', and that 'later editing or deletion cannot undo prior delivery or reading.' This provides extra context about timing, visibility, and irreversibility.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs all necessary information without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.

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 the simple schema, the annotations, and the behavioral details, the description is largely complete. It does not mention the output, but an output schema exists (per context signals), so that omission is acceptable.

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?

The schema defines body and projectId with types and constraints, but the description only implicitly clarifies their roles (body as the message, projectId as the target project). It does not explicitly explain each parameter's purpose or format beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Post a message ... to the selected private PaperDock project's Chat.' It uses a specific verb ('Post') and differentiates from siblings like create_comment by focusing on chat messages.

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 when to use the tool (sending chat messages to a project) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., create_comment) or state when not to use it. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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