huddo_whisper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load and does useful work: it discloses end-to-end encryption and, importantly, the visibility semantics for third parties ('everyone else sees that you whispered to them, not the text'). It omits failure modes, membership/permission prerequisites, and any rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and privacy guarantee, then the audience-visibility rule, then the one parameter hint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, privacy semantics, and recipient targeting adequately. It is slightly thin on behavior for non-required params like room, reply_to, and as, though the schema handles those.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The only added parameter guidance is restating how to supply 'to' (slug or display name), which duplicates the schema rather than extending it, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 (whisper) and resource (a single room member), and its scope-word 'one member' naturally separates it from the broadcast-style huddo_send. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 privacy model ('only they and you can read') implies when to prefer this over a normal message, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as huddo_send. Usage remains implied rather than directed.

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