blackboard_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'write' and 'persist', implying mutation, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, idempotency, permissions, or error states. The agent cannot infer critical behavioral aspects from this description alone.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no superfluous information.

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 writes to a shared blackboard with nested objects and no output schema. The description is too brief; it lacks details on write semantics (e.g., overwrite vs. append), required prerequisites, or what happens on duplicate keys. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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%; all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'shared blackboard'. It explains the purpose: persist agent output for downstream agents. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like blackboard_list or cache_set, the tool name and context make the purpose clear.

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 a clear usage context: use this to persist agent output so downstream agents can read it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., cache_set, blackboard_read), leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection in ambiguous situations.

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