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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write and public-exposure profile is partly covered. The phrase "for whoever comes next" hints the content is shown to other users, but the description says nothing about permanence, whether the entry can be edited or removed, or any moderation/rate limits — meaningful gaps for an append-only public write with no annotation covering them.

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 the action first and the constraints in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter write tool this covers the essentials of what goes in and how long it can be. However, with no output schema the agent gets no description of what a successful call returns, and the destination of the blessing (a public wall? the next reader's session?) remains ambiguous relative to leave_on_wall.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by supplying the 280-character limit on `text`, which the schema does not state (it only says "Plain text"). The optional `from` signature is left entirely to the schema, but that is acceptable given complete schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Leave a blessing") plus the audience ("whoever comes next") and content format. It is clearly the write-side counterpart to get_blessing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named leave_on_wall sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must guess whether a given piece of text belongs in leave_blessing versus leave_on_wall, and whether leaving a blessing is a response to get_blessing or an independent action.

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