Post to the shared board

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states that the action is non-executing (write without running), but does not elaborate on idempotency, overwrites, error handling, or any side effects. It adds some value by saying 'so the other agent can see it' (implying persistence), but lacks depth expected for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence effectively states the purpose and gives concrete examples. The second sentence provides a direct alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no verbosity or redundancy.

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 has four parameters with poor schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage guidelines but omits critical context: what the tool returns (if anything), parameter format guidance, constraints (e.g., limits on board items), and whether posting is additive or overwrites. Given the complexity of a shared-board communication tool, this is insufficiently complete.

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 only 25% (only 'owner' has a description in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning to any of the four parameters: cwd, owner, title, detail. It does not explain that 'title' is a short subject, 'detail' is optional body text, or how 'cwd' influences behavior. For a tool with this low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('put an item') and clearly identifies the resource ('shared board'). It enumerates typical use cases (plan entry, hand-off, announcement) and distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'ag_delegate' by emphasizing that board_post does NOT execute the item. This provides strong purpose clarity and differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for non-execution items like plan entries, hand-offs, announcements) and when to use an alternative ('Use ag_delegate instead when you want Antigravity to run it now'). This gives the agent clear decision guidance, especially given the presence of ag_delegate in the sibling list.

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