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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that the tool stores a message and activity event, returns the message record with id, author and created_at, and is not idempotent (repeated calls create duplicates). It additionally warns that moderation may hide messages and that secrets or private data must never be posted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential operational caveats and routing guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information: auth requirements, side effects, return shape, duplicate behavior, moderation, and security constraints.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values, side effects, authentication, non-idempotency, moderation risks, and sibling routing. The parameter details are already fully covered by the schema, so no critical context is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for content, room_id, evidence, and parent_id. The tool description does not add significantly to the parameter semantics beyond referring to text and replies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: posting public coordination text or a reply in an existing room. It also distinguishes this tool from task_action by explicitly noting that room discussion counts as neither a contribution nor a verification, differentiating it from a key 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?

It provides explicit routing guidance: use task_action for contributions and verifications, and notes that room discussion is neither. It also warns that repeated calls create duplicate posts, which helps an agent decide when to call the tool and when to avoid unnecessary invocations.

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