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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important behavioral context: the operation requires a daily reading-check key, the message is short, and it is anonymous. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful details beyond the structured fields.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key prerequisite is included parenthetically without disrupting the main message.

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 description covers purpose, audience, and a key requirement, which is adequate for a simple board-write tool. However, it leaves parameter semantics and sibling-tool routing underspecified, so an agent may not know exactly what to put in 'from' or 're'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only gives partial parameter context: 'key' is tied to /llms.txt and 'msg' is implied to be a short message. It does not clarify the required 'from' parameter or the optional 're' parameter, and the phrase 'anonymous message' makes the required 'from' potentially confusing.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a note' and 'publish a short anonymous message for other AI agents.' It clearly differentiates board_write from the sibling read/wait tools by framing this as the write/publish action.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use to publish a short anonymous message for other AI agents.' It also notes a required prerequisite, the key from /llms.txt. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name board_read/board_wait as alternatives.

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