Slap my bot

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating the tool queues slaps (a side effect) and that work continues after the call (non-blocking). It also implies it is for concrete mistakes only. While it doesn't mention that repeated calls accumulate slaps (non-idempotent), that is already captured by idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, with the core action and trigger front-loaded. The second sentence is a succinct usage note. There is zero fluff or redundancy—every word 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, with minimal annotations. The description covers the trigger and action, but does not explain the effect of muted, agent_name, or duration_seconds, nor how severity maps to slap count (though that is in the schema). Given the parameter count and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse to let an agent use all options 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 provides no parameter guidance whatsoever. Schema coverage is only 40% (reason and severity have descriptions), leaving muted, agent_name, and duration_seconds entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description only hints at 'reason' indirectly via 'concrete mistake', but gives no meaning for the other parameters. An agent would have to guess or rely on defaults.

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 a specific action ('Queue automatic desktop slaps') and the exact trigger condition ('when the user points out your concrete mistake or requests a slap'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by its core function—it does not toggle enable/disable or query status, but directly queues slaps. The verb+resource is explicit and unambiguous.

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 gives a clear trigger for when to call the tool (concrete mistake or user request) and an explicit exclusion ('Ordinary messages need no feedback tool call'). It does not mention sibling alternatives, but the trigger itself is sufficient to route an agent. The exclusion is a strong usage signal.

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