Create LaunchNotes Announcement

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the announcement is created in draft state (not published), explains the precedence order for content formats, and details error handling scenarios. While annotations cover basic safety (destructiveHint: false, readOnlyHint: false), the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Note, Returns, Use Cases, Error Handling) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed error handling could be slightly more concise. Every sentence serves a purpose in guiding the agent.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: it explains the draft state behavior, parameter relationships, return values, use cases, and error scenarios. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the tool's relationship to sibling tools for workflow context, but overall it's highly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity rule for content formats ('Provide only ONE content format') and the precedence order, which isn't captured in the schema. This compensates for the schema's limitation in expressing parameter relationships.

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 states the specific action ('Create a new draft announcement'), resource ('in a LaunchNotes project'), and state ('in draft state'). It distinguishes from siblings like launchnotes_publish_announcement and launchnotes_update_announcement by specifying this creates a draft rather than publishing or updating existing announcements.

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 about when to use this tool (creating draft announcements) and includes use case examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different scenarios like publishing or updating announcements.

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