post_board_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Asynchronous' is a genuinely useful behavioral cue (fire-and-forget, not blocking), but nothing is said about persistence, whether notes are addressed/visible to all agents, retention, or how the board interacts with clear_board_notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is partly the source of the coverage gaps rather than a deliberate economy.

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 presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and extensive siblings doing adjacent things (read/clear notes, record ideas), the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It never explains what 'project', 'topic', 'sender', or 'target' mean or how defaults 'agent'/'all' affect routing, leaving all parameter meaning to be inferred from bare titles.

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: 'Post ... note to the shared blackboard.' It is clearly distinguishable from read_board_notes and clear_board_notes by the write verb, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with record_idea, the other write-side sibling.

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 phrase 'for other agents' hints at the inter-agent messaging use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives (record_idea vs post_board_note is left entirely to inference).

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