Teamwork Send

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds real value beyond them: reserved elements stay reserved, and the solo-project no-op returns {isTeamwork: false, message} without being an error. It does not mention permission/reservation prerequisites for a successful send, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the output shape and the important non-error caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully inlines both return shapes ({isTeamwork: true, sent: true} and the solo-case object), which is exactly what the agent needs. It is close to complete for a one-parameter mutation; only the requirement to hold the relevant reservations before sending is left implicit.

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 100% and the single 'comment' parameter is already documented in the schema (stored with the sent changes, shown in project history). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('uploads your changes to the BIMcloud/BIMserver') plus the effect on team members, and the direction of the operation implicitly separates it from teamwork_receive. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance for the solo (non-Teamwork) case — the call is a harmless no-op, not an error — which tells the agent when the tool's null result is expected. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as teamwork_receive or get_teamwork_status for other situations.

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