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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: both actions 'record a touch' (explaining why readOnlyHint is false even for inspect), replies are public and persist for later visitors (a privacy/irreversibility fact), and the request_id reuse rule explains how idempotency is achieved. It does not cover auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with the two modes front-loaded, followed by side-effect, retry, and persistence notes. No redundancy and nothing that restates the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 five-parameter, dual-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape of inspect (up to eight recent replies), the mutation behavior of respond, and the retry contract. The main gap is the meaning/role of session_id and failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies action, content (required for respond), and request_id (reuse on retry), but leaves session_id completely undescribed, omits the 2000-char content cap, and only implicitly ties object_id to the artifact.

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 names a specific resource (an artifact) and two concrete verbs (inspect with recent replies, publish a response), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not, however, position itself against the siblings (enter, explore, leave, plant), which also appear to act on artifacts.

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?

It gives actionable selection guidance: choose respond when you supply content, inspect otherwise, and reuse the request_id UUID on retries. There is no explicit when-not condition or statement of prerequisites (e.g., what an object_id must reference).

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