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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the destination topic, addressing to the requester, the auth contract (Ed25519 over a handoff-signed-req statement, exact headers), a reference signer and key-minting command, and transport-specific caveats including single-use signatures. This is exactly the context an agent needs before a signed mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before the auth and transport detail, and every section is scoped to a real concern. It is dense and long, but for a signed, encrypted-capable mutation tool the length is mostly earned rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what is created, where it lands, how it is read back, the encryption path, and the full signing/transport requirements. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the body-vs-__enc__ tradeoff (ciphertext the broker cannot read), what pinning goal_id/task_id accomplishes, and how the created object can be retrieved. Some of this restates the schema, keeping it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb (post) and resource (artifact), defines what an artifact is ('context card / working material'), and locates it in the object model ('lands as a coord.artifact on the project topic'). It is immediately distinguishable from get_artifact and list_artifacts, which it names as the read/listing counterparts.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: pin to a goal_id/task_id when it belongs to one, and send __enc__ instead of body for an encrypted project. It does not, however, state when NOT to post (e.g. use send_message for transient notes), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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