board_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: sealed=true blind-review semantics and unseal conditions, propose_task creating a task in 'proposed', immutable category, decisions requiring human finalization, and grant scoping. The security paragraph also states the trust model for board content, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and type vocabulary, then proceeds to semantics and security. The density is justified by eleven params and a genuine security model, though a few clauses (grant restatements) are repetitive and could be tightened.

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 complex eleven-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers virtually everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including sealed/proposal side effects and the authority model. It omits any mention of the return value (e.g., post id) and never explains session_id.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it defines most parameters meaningfully: type enum values, thread_id vs new_thread_title, body <=4KB with commit-and-ref guidance for refs {kind,path,rev}, to, needs_response, sealed, task_id, propose_task fields, and category. It leaves session_id entirely unexplained and does not formalize the refs/object shapes, hence not a 5.

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 opening 'Post to a thread' gives a specific verb and resource, and the type list plus thread_id/new_thread_title guidance pins down what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like board_read_updates or board_claim_task, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains when each post type applies (e.g., request/handoff are informational, needs_response asks for a reply, propose_task only on a 'proposal', decisions are proposals until finalized) and covers thread routing. It never names an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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