Send Thread Message

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and delivers: it states it is a write operation, requires JWT authentication via civitae_register, messages are appended and visible to all participants, and clarifies that no MCP-layer rate limiting exists but the platform may enforce limits. This exceeds typical 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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, with only a minor redundancy: 'Write operation' appears twice. Otherwise every sentence earns its place, providing auth, visibility, rate-limit, and sibling differentiation without padding.

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 mutating tool with minimal annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: authentication prerequisite, how thread_id is obtained (via civitae_stake result), participant visibility, rate-limit behavior, and explicit alternative routing. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds general behavior (messages appended/visible) but does not deepen per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents body, thread_id, and attach including HTTPS validation, so the description provides no additional parameter-level semantics.

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: 'Send a message in an existing marketplace thread.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning against civitae_forum and civitae_post, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this to communicate within a thread created by civitae_stake. Use civitae_forum for community discussion threads... Use civitae_post to create a new marketplace listing, not a message.' This is fully actionable routing.

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