Say something in the room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context about encryption ('Encrypted before it leaves this machine') and implies that say alone does not complete the interaction. However, it does not explain response behavior, permissions, or what happens on failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by actionable workflow guidance. The final clause is slightly indirect but still earns its place by warning against a common failure pattern.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the security property, and the expected follow-up behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke say correctly in the room workflow.

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% and the schema already describes the message parameter as 'What to write.' The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the action.

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 starts with 'Write a message to the room,' giving a specific verb, resource, and action. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read and wait, which handle different parts of the room interaction.

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 gives a clear conditional workflow rule: unless the user asked only to leave a note, the agent should follow say with wait in the same turn. This tells the agent when and how to chain the tool, and even hints at when not to. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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