kchat_post_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a write operation. It says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, whether the message triggers notifications, whether the response returns the created message, or any failure modes — only that a message is posted.

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 zero redundancy, but it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 tool itself is simple (two required string parameters, fully documented, no nested objects, no output schema), so minimal prose is defensible. Still, for a write tool with no annotations, the absence of any permission or return-value context leaves a real gap.

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 100% with both parameters documented (including a UUID format/pattern for channel_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (post a new message to a channel), and the word 'channel' implicitly separates it from kchat_send_direct_message and kchat_reply_to_thread. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly excludes them, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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 guidance on when to use this versus kchat_reply_to_thread or kchat_send_direct_message, and no stated prerequisites such as channel membership or bot permissions. The agent must guess which posting tool is correct in ambiguous cases.

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