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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions automatic secret masking and that the room is determined from member_id, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, 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?

Two concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with key actions and important notes about masking and usage. No wasted words.

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 messaging tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the main purpose, optional targeting, and a behavioral trait (secret masking). Missing error handling or full parameter details, but adequate.

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 only 33% (only 'to' has description). The description adds that 'to' is for a specific nickname and that member_id is used to identify the room, but 'text' remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 it sends a note to other sessions in the room, specifies behavior when 'to' is absent (sends to all), and mentions secret masking. It is specific and distinguishes the tool's action.

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 includes a hint that code is not needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with sibling tools like baton_approve or baton_receive.

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