post_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or whether the message is appended. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that includes practical examples without any redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.

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 is simple with three self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) and failure modes. It is adequate for a basic tool but has clear gaps given there are no annotations to provide safety/reversibility context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the role of taskId and content via 'task's conversation thread' and examples, but it does not explicitly explain the author parameter or any additional constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory, offering partial compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('post') and resource ('message to a task's conversation thread'), and the examples clarify the intended content types. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_messages, which is the read counterpart.

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 provides clear usage context through examples (clarifications, review feedback, status notes), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for reading messages, use get_messages', so it falls short of a 5.

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