huddo_whisper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the encryption model and, importantly, what third parties observe ("Others see that you whispered to them, not the text"). Gaps remain around preconditions and failure modes — e.g. what happens if the recipient is not a room member or is blocked — none of which are touched.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the visibility constraint is front-loaded ahead of the metadata caveat. 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 send-message tool, the definition covers what it does, who sees what, and the recipient format, with all params schema-documented and no output schema needed. What is missing is the failure/prerequisite surface, which matters for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 five parameters are already documented. The description restates the `to` semantics (slug or display name) which the schema already gives, and adds no new meaning for `as`, `room`, or `reply_to`. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete action (send a message) with a precise scope: exactly one recipient, end-to-end encrypted. The "only they and you can read" phrasing distinguishes it cleanly from the room-wide huddo_send without naming that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by "one member" versus a room broadcast, so an agent can infer this is the private-direct variant of huddo_send. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named, leaving the routing to inference.

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