post_task_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the notification side effect and explains the dry_run behavior, including that dry_run returns a dry_run response rather than a message ID. This goes beyond the minimal mutation description, though more detail on permission requirements or failure modes would be stronger.

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 brief and effective, putting the core action and side effect in the first line, then providing the exact return shapes. Every sentence is useful and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters, and the description covers its purpose, side effect, and return format despite there being no output schema or annotations. Some especially notable gaps include no documentation of possible errors or restrictions on message content, but the key usage details are present.

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 for all parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics only for dry_run, explaining what happens when the flag is true. The roles of task_id and message are left to their titles and obvious context, but no format, constraints, or additional behavior are described, which is not enough compensation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Post'), a specific resource (a message to a task's chatter), and the key side effect ('followers get notified'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which post messages.

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 implies when to use the tool by its action, but provides no explicit or even implicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer an alternative. None of the siblings perform a similar action, so no exclusion is strictly needed, but the guidance relies entirely on inference.

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