Acknowledge a Boardroom handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'posts a short reply in the original thread using the existing Boardroom post path' and clarifies it does not claim todos or change code. This is transparent about the action and its limits, though it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which would be helpful.

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 composed of two concise sentences that efficiently cover purpose, benefits, usage conditions, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the main action and value. Minor improvement could be structuring the usage guidelines more explicitly, but it remains clear and compact.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for most use cases. It explains when to use and what the tool does, but does not address error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existence of thread_id), or return values. This is sufficient for a simple action but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with clear explanations. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description focuses on overall purpose rather than parameter details.

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 action ('Replies to a Boardroom handoff with a structured ACK card') and the resource ('Boardroom handoff'). It specifies the benefit ('so the sender and the human can see ownership, next action, ETA, and blockers without parsing free-form chat'), and distinguishes itself from generic replies by mentioning the structured card format. Among a vast set of siblings, this purpose is specific and unique.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: 'when a message is directly addressed to you, tagged handoff, or asks you to confirm receipt.' It also states what the tool does not do ('it does not claim a todo or change code by itself'), offering some boundaries. However, it does not name specific alternatives or cases when not to use, limiting the guidance slightly.

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