corp__post_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool writes to the outside world, is classified as egress, and can be blocked by the prompt-injection shield. It does not detail visibility, persistence, or return behavior, but for a simple post tool these are secondary.

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 sentences with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the egress policy earns the second sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it defines the action, target, side effect, and an important refusal condition. The only missing piece is any indication of what the tool returns or how success is reported, which is a minor gap.

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 says 'text' is 'The note text to post'. The description adds no additional parameter constraints, format details, or examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Post') with a specific resource ('a note to the shared team space'), and the shared-notes context makes its write purpose clear next to siblings like corp__read_public_post. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool—posting a note to the shared team space—and an explicit when-not: it is refused if the session has already read untrusted content. It does not name an alternative tool to use in that case, 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.