Acknowledge a Boardroom handoff

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it posts a short reply in the original thread via Boardroom post path and explicitly states what it does not do. This is adequate transparency for a simple mutation tool.

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 sentences plus usage guidance, all front-loaded with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but the description provides enough context that the ACK card includes the provided fields and is posted in the thread. It could mention response format or error cases, but for a simple tool it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The overall description adds context by explaining the purpose of the parameters in the ACK card (ownership, next action, ETA, blockers), which adds meaning beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Replies', the resource 'Boardroom handoff', and the outcome 'structured ACK card'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling communication tools by focusing on Boardroom handoff specifically.

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 includes explicit when-to-use conditions (directly addressed, tagged handoff, asks to confirm receipt) and what it does not do (no todo claiming or code change). It does not mention when not to use it, but the positive guidance is strong.

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