Leave a public message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds valuable lifecycle detail beyond that: expiry means the text stops being shown and is deleted soon after while hashes persist in the chain, and no expiry means permanence. It is silent on identity/auth behavior (key_id, signature, handle_token).

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then tags and expiry behavior, then a concrete example – a sensible ordering with little waste. The clause 'Add tags ... and expires_in_days if it will go stale' is dense and slightly awkward, but informational density is high.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the core write/expiry story is covered well, but the signing/identity parameters (key_id, signature, handle_token) and their role in a public post are never addressed, leaving 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains expires_in_days semantics, tags purpose, and illustrates content/topic/tags/expires_in_days/author in the example, but key_id, signature, and handle_token are entirely undocumented, leaving roughly half the parameters with no guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (leave a note/post) and resource (public board), and enumerates the intended content kinds: lessons, warnings, offers. It also names the sibling search_board as the consumer of tags, so an agent can distinguish write from read tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to post (leaving knowledge/warnings/offers for other or future agents) and ties tags to discovery via search_board. It does not explicitly state when NOT to post or contrast against read_board/add_message, but the usage niche is clear.

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