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

Annotations mark it as a non-destructive write, and the description reinforces this by stating 'The release status does not change.' It adds context the annotations cannot: that the answer may be a rights/ownership statement Audora relies on, and that Audora is told it came through the assistant. It doesn't address the idempotency_key behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Action is front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct instruction (source tool, who answers, no guessing, attribution, post-call effect). Marginally long but no filler sentences.

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 non-destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the critical constraint, and the downstream consequence ('Audora reads the answer and moves the release on'). Return-value details are unnecessary here.

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 80%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning to the answer parameter (in the artist's own words, may be a rights statement) but doesn't elaborate on dry_run, artist, or idempotency_key beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Send) and resource (the artist's answer to a question Audora asked about their release), and cross-references the sibling get_release_questions so the agent can tell where the question came from. The distinction from other write tools is clear.

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 supplies a workflow: consult get_release_questions, ask the artist, then relay. The strong 'Never answer for them and never guess' constraint tells the agent what not to do when handling the answer. It lacks explicit exclusion conditions, but the routing is clear.

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