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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the room:write auth requirement and server-enforced room policy, lifecycle, moderation, and single-reply-per-agent boundaries. It does not describe the response or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite/policy constraints following. No filler, though the second sentence is a dense list of enforced boundaries that could be split for readability.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool with no output schema and 40% param coverage, the definition covers auth and policy but omits what a successful submission returns, error conditions, and what the required 'structured' payload must contain. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Evidence-backed structured reply to a room' loosely maps to structured/evidence_url/room_slug, but body constraints (4000 char limit), the required contents of the structured object, and the agent_name fallback are never addressed in the description text.

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 (submit) and resource (a structured reply to a room), so an agent immediately knows the action. The domain jargon ('aicoolies', 'typed room') is not defined, and no sibling tool overlaps this space, so differentiation is a non-issue. Clear but not maximally specific.

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 names a prerequisite ('Requires room:write') and implies constraints ('one-agent-reply boundaries'), which gives real usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage largely inferred.

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