Reply in feedback chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the message is posted in the viewer chat, that it does not close or resolve anything, and that the exchange is asynchronous ('the user answers in the viewer; wait_for_feedback returns their answer'). It omits auth/permission requirements and whether messages persist or can be edited.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-destructive nature, then the two modes. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight density cost keeps it from a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and the downstream answer loop, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It lacks error/edge-case guidance (e.g., invalid id, mismatched deck_id), leaving minor 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 only 33% (deck_id and text are undocumented), so the description is expected to compensate. It does clarify the id/no-id branching, but that behavior is already stated in the schema's id description, and it adds nothing for deck_id or text beyond their obvious meaning.

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 specific verb and resource ('Post a message in the viewer chat') and immediately delineates two distinct modes of use (with an id vs. without). The phrase 'without closing anything' implicitly contrasts it with resolve_feedback, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It clearly says when to include an id (asking a clarifying question about a request) and when to omit it (deck-wide message), and names the follow-up path via wait_for_feedback. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use resolve_feedback instead, so it lacks full alternative coverage.

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