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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that writes are appended, never replaced, ordered, preserved, and attested. This goes well beyond a simple 'write' statement, though it does not describe return values or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence: the core action appears first, followed by essential behavioral guarantees. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or unclear wording.

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 simple append tool, the description covers the target resource, data model, permissions, and persistence semantics despite lacking annotations and an output schema. It does not mention response behavior or interaction with history/read tools, but the essential context for calling it correctly is present.

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 75%, so the schema already documents key, value, and author. The description adds context by framing these as a 'key-value entry' on the proposal's blackboard, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on parameter formats or constraints 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 names a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('key-value entry to a proposal's blackboard'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like read, history, propose, and vote. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 phrase 'Any agent may write' gives helpful permissive context, and the append-only semantics clarify how writes behave, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose write over alternatives such as propose, register, resolve, or vote. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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