Start IRC typing notification

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that clients show the notification for about 6 seconds and require repeated calls to stay active. It also explains the termination path (send message or irc_stop_typing), which is valuable operational context not present in annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, lifecycle/behavior, and alternative. No filler or tautology. Each sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values are covered), and the description gives the core action, TTL, renewal strategy, and a preferred alternative. The only minor gap is the 'account' parameter, but it is optional and likely context-dependent. Overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description clarifies the 'target' parameter as 'a channel or user', which adds meaning beyond the plain schema string type. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not explained at all, and with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Send a typing notification (+typing=active) to a channel or user, signalling that a message is being composed.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions the protocol command. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing irc_stop_typing and irc_send_with_typing.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: call again to keep the typing indicator alive, then send the message or call irc_stop_typing. It also names an alternative: 'For one-shot human-like sends, prefer irc_send_with_typing.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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