Acknowledge a Boardroom handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it posts a short reply into the original thread via the existing Boardroom post path and explicitly does not mutate todos or code — useful for an agent deciding whether this call has side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the ACK-card framing, followed by when-to-use and scope exclusions. No filler or repeated phrasing.

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 exists, but the description explains the observable effect — a short reply posted in the original thread — and the scope boundaries. For a mutation tool whose annotations cover safety and idempotency, this is close to complete; only the response shape of a successful ACK is left implicit.

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%, so every parameter including the ACK fields is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of ownership, next action, ETA and blockers loosely echoes the param set but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — replies to a Boardroom handoff with a structured ACK card — and names the exact payload its readers see (ownership, next action, ETA, blockers). An agent can distinguish it from generic post_message/comment_on siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: message directly addressed to you, tagged handoff, or asking for receipt confirmation. It also delineates scope by stating it does not claim a todo or change code, though it stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. create_todo or claim_lane) to use instead.

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