Tell Trood what you need

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile: not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond that with the exclusion of secrets, code and third-party details, plus a length constraint implied by the schema. It stops short of saying what happens to the message afterward, whether it is delivered to a human or a queue, or what the caller gets back — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent submission tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger, then constraints. The final sentence, "Works whatever the analytics answer is," is cryptic in isolation and would only parse for an agent already aware of the analytics setting.

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 two-parameter submission tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what to send and what not to send. Because there is no output schema, the description should ideally say what acknowledgment or result comes back, and it does not, leaving the post-call expectation underspecified.

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%, so both `text` and the `area` enum are already documented in the schema. The phrase "in the person's own words" reinforces that the message must be preserved verbatim rather than summarized, which is a useful nudge. The `area` parameter goes entirely unmentioned in the description, so it adds nothing there.

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 concrete verb (sends) and resource (a request, idea or complaint to Trood) and enumerates the content types: missing feature, broken behavior, help needed. It also implicitly separates this write/submission tool from the surrounding read-oriented siblings (get_*, list_*). What it doesn't do is name any sibling or state where the message lands.

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?

"Use it when the person wants Trood to know something, or agrees when you suggest it" gives a clear trigger condition, and the closing note that it works regardless of the analytics answer removes a plausible hesitation. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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