say

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important traits: public visibility, 'permanent-ish' persistence, attribution to a nickname anyone can use, and automatic room creation. This goes beyond a simple 'post' and gives the agent a realistic sense of the tool's side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Post a message to a room') followed by essential caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 simple messaging tool with a complete parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: public, permanent-ish, nickname spoofing, and room creation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could hint at return values or error conditions for extra clarity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (nick, room, text). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Post a message to a room', and adds a key differentiator: creating the room if it does not exist. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_room or write_note, which have different purposes.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for posting public messages to a room and notes the side effect of room creation. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case. No exclusions are mentioned.

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