team_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral constraints not in the schema: keep it to one or two sentences, and never include secrets. It says nothing about visibility (whole team vs channel), permanence, notification behavior, or whether the post can be edited or retracted — meaningful gaps for a broadcast mutation.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and then enumerate the content modes. The secrets warning is a brief imperative with no filler; every clause earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, content kinds, length, and a security constraint. It is nearly sufficient, missing only the downstream effects of posting (visibility, permissions, follow-up via team_reply).

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description loosely reinforces semantics ('a decision and why') but adds no syntax, length, or format detail beyond what the schema fields already state.

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 gives a clear verb+resource — telling the team something — and breaks the action into its two concrete modes (progress update, decision). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like team_ask or team_sync, so an agent must infer that this is the broadcast/announce tool rather than the question or sync tool.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by enumerating acceptable content (progress update, decision with rationale) and adds a 'Never include secrets' constraint. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative siblings (team_ask, team_reply, team_sync), so routing between the team_* tools is left to inference.

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