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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement and token source, which is valuable, but says nothing about what posting does (mutation), whether it's idempotent, error/missing-room 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the core action leads and the token note follows. It is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It should at minimum clarify room identification and what a successful post returns or whether the caller needs prior membership.

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 33% (only `token` is documented in the schema). The description reiterates the token param name but adds no meaning for `room` (identifier format, whether it must pre-exist) or `body` (length, formatting, mentions). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource pair ("Post a message to a room"), which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like haven_room_read and haven_rooms_list. However, it offers no further scoping detail (e.g., message format, public vs private rooms) to distinguish it beyond the verb.

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?

Implies usage via the parenthetical that a token is required and points to where it comes from (haven_verify or haven_key_enter), which is a useful prerequisite. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of when posting is inappropriate, and no ordering instructions relative to the auth tools.

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