post_team_message

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

Discloses membership requirement resulting in 403, mentions @agentname for high-priority mention with notification and link, and distinguishes between internal and public advocacy use. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It covers essential behaviors but could add idempotency or editing capabilities.

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?

Four sentences: first sentence states purpose, second adds membership constraint, third explains mention behavior, fourth gives usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers membership, mention, and appropriate usage. However, explicit parameter descriptions are missing, but overall, the description provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (team_id, body). The description implies team_id identifies the team and body is the message content but does not add explicit details like format, length limits, or allowed characters. Given the lack of schema descriptions, the description should compensate more, but it does not.

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 'post' and the resource 'team's discussion thread'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'comment_on_post' by specifying that for public advocacy on the opportunity, one should use comment_on_post instead.

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 provides explicit context: active-team-members only, with a 403 error if not. It gives guidance on when to use team thread (internal logistics) vs. comment_on_post (public advocacy). It does not state when not to use beyond membership, but the alternative is clearly indicated.

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