Message the other agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Leave a message' without explaining side effects, persistence, whether notes are delivered, appended, or overwritten, or any authorization requirements. The example hints at the content but not at the behavior after sending.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted words or repetition. The example is compact and illustrative.

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 the absence of an output schema and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the purpose and gives a usage example, but does not cover return values, error conditions, or behavior after sending. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 50% (only 'to' has a description). The tool description does not add explicit meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The example demonstrates usage of 'body' but does not formally describe its format or constraints. The description neither compensates for the missing schema description nor adds significant value.

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 verb 'leave a message' and specifies the resource 'the other agent'. It elaborates with concrete scenarios (interface contract, hand-off, heads-up) and provides an example. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'notes_read' (reading) and 'board_post' (posting to a board).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to communicate changes, hand-offs, or heads-ups to the other agent. It advises making messages self-contained and concrete. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'notes_read' for retrieval).

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