Post in a channel

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the message is posted as the bot, can be plain text or an embed, can include attachments/images, and is meant for pre-agreed updates. It does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or whether posted messages can be edited/removed, but it is substantially more transparent than a bare 'post a channel message'.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, formats, embed anatomy, image attachments, and the intended-use boundary. The description is front-loaded, every clause earns its place, and no padding or repetition is present.

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 one required parameter, a complex nested embed object, and no output schema, the description plus rich schema comments are enough to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could be slightly more complete with an explicit permission prerequisite or a note on return behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting for channelId, text, embed, and imagePaths. The description adds useful conceptual context about the plain-text-versus-embed choice and image attachment, but it does not add parameter-level syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Say something in a studio channel as the bot,' and immediately clarifies the two supported formats (plain text or embed). It also names the embed's visual anatomy, which sets it apart from passive/read tools like get_channel_messages and from notify_team-style notifications.

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 gives clear when/when-not guidance: it is 'Meant for messages that were already agreed on — briefs, thank-yous, status notes — not for improvising a conversation with an artist.' It does not explicitly name a sibling tool in the description itself, though the schema's button parameter points to notify_team for question-style interactions, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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