athena_party_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: messages must be acknowledged to contribute to party XP, posting itself earns zero XP, and messages are tagged with party_id and goal_refs. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits details like auth requirements, side effects on existing messages, or return behavior.

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 with no filler. It leads with the primary action, then provides essential behavioral context about XP eligibility and goal tagging. Every clause adds value.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a good high-level purpose but leaves several gaps: no return value information, no explanation of the acknowledgement/reward window mechanics, no prerequisites (e.g., valid party_id), and incomplete parameter semantics. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently without additional inference.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains party_id and goal_refs ('tagged with party_id and explicit party goal refs'), but leaves sender, recipients, message, remote, reply_to, and message_kind unexplained. The message_kind enum values are not described, and no guidance is given on how these parameters interact.

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 identifies the action ('Post'), the resource ('party-scoped coordination message'), and the mechanism ('canonical Message Board V1'). It distinguishes this tool from generic messaging by emphasizing party_id and goal_refs, and clarifies the XP contribution rule, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: posting party-scoped coordination messages that need goal refs and potential XP eligibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., athena_message_board) or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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