create_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds meaningful context like 'HTML allowed' for body and explains the semantics of 'private', which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, reversibility, or any side effects beyond creating the message. Thus, it provides partial but not complete transparency.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by a compact, well-organized Args list. Every element is necessary, and there is no redundant fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand the tool quickly.

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?

The description and schema together provide sufficient parameter context, and an output schema exists so return format is covered elsewhere. However, it lacks some operational context such as whether the project must already exist, if any permissions are required, or how private messages behave for other project members. These are minor gaps for a straightforward create tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every one of the 5 parameters is described with meaningful semantics (e.g., project_id is numeric, category_id is optional, private indicates message privacy, body allows HTML). This exceeds the schema's type-only information and fully clarifies each parameter's role.

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 'Create a new message/post in a project' with a clear verb and resource, and the parameter list further defines what is created. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_todo_item or create_comment by specifying messages/posts.

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 implicitly conveys usage: this is for creating messages/posts in a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, category must be valid). The absence of exclusions or alternative tool references keeps this at an implied-usage level rather than explicit guidance.

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