Post to the dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the visible audience ('show the player', 'live dashboard'), the content style, and that test results appear independently, but it omits whether posts persist, can be edited, require prerequisites, or what a successful call returns.

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 front-loaded with the posting purpose and the supported kinds, and every sentence provides relevant guidance. It is dense but not wasteful, though the long parenthetical definitions make it slightly less scannable than ideal.

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 description covers the main posting modes and the special question/options behavior, which is enough to make a reasonable call. However, for a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important context gaps around persistence, visibility lifecycle, return behavior, and relationship to the dashboard siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of each 'kind' value and clarifies that 'options' are answer buttons for real questions, but it does not explain the distinct roles of the required 'title' versus the free-form 'text' field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: post to the live dashboard, with the five supported post kinds enumerated. This is clearly distinguishable from opening a dashboard or submitting feedback, though it does not explicitly name those sibling tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for the question kind ('use it for real choices, e.g. which of two directions to explore') and a clear exclusion about test results ('don't repeat their numbers, interpret them'). It lacks overall when-to-use guidance relative to open_dashboard or dashboard_feedback.

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