blackboard_write

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: overwriting, TTL replacement, non-idempotent nature (new timestamp/sourceAgent each call), return formats for success and error, required JSON validity, and authentication conditions. This is comprehensive.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then covers return values, error conditions, and parameter usage. Slightly dense but not verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return values and error conditions. It explains idempotency, TTL behavior, key naming, authentication, and suggests confirmation with blackboard_read. This is complete for a write 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema: clarifying that value must be a JSON string (use JSON.stringify), that omitting ttl makes the entry persistent, and that agent_token is only needed for protected keys. It also suggests namespaced keys.

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 clearly states the tool writes a JSON value to a key on the blackboard, overwriting existing entries. It uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('blackboard'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., blackboard_read, blackboard_delete).

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 provides usage guidance such as using namespaced keys and confirming with blackboard_read if the consumer is polling. It does not explicitly compare to other tools, but the write operation is naturally differentiated from read/delete/list. Conditional usage of agent_token is explained.

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