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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the non-internal message is delivered to the customer's channel and cannot be recalled, and that text should be confirmed first. This is exactly the consequence information an agent needs before an irreversible write.

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-loads the core action, then the branching behavior, then the endpoint. The ALL-CAPS emphasis is slightly shouty but functionally directs attention to the irreversible path; overall the passage is tight and earns its place.

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 write tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the missing risk context (external delivery, irreversibility, channel scope) and the endpoint. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including internal_note's true/false semantics. The description reinforces the internal_note consequence but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 (a message on a ticket), which is unambiguous against siblings like trengo_list_ticket_messages (read) or trengo_assign_ticket. An agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

Explicitly explains the internal_note=true vs default branch, effectively telling the agent when to use which mode. It does not, however, contrast with alternatives such as listing messages first, so it omits an exclusion/alternative comparison.

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