tocaro_post_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a write operation ('post'), that invalid group/user combinations cause an error, and how mentions must be formatted. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three terse sentences front-load the main action and then give constraints, code sources, and mention syntax without repetition. Every sentence 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, the description covers targeting rules, ID resolution, and one message formatting detail, and an output schema exists. The only notable gap is lack of any guidance on the optional attachments parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for text, group, and user—especially the code sources and mutual exclusivity—but never mentions the attachments parameter, which is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: posting a message to a Tocaro group or personal talk. It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling tools like tocaro_search_users, tocaro_create_group, and tocaro_create_task.

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 states the mutual-exclusion rule for group and user, the error condition if both or neither are supplied, and explicitly points to tocaro_list_groups and tocaro_search_users for obtaining valid codes. This is direct when-to-use guidance and mentions relevant alternatives.

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