post_standup_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the side effect (sends a visible message), the credential nature of the webhook URL, support for multiple payload shapes, and error handling (errors instead of silent success). This is thorough and goes well beyond basic operation.

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: it states the core action and side effect first, then covers credentials, payload shapes, and error behavior in a logical order. Every sentence provides necessary context with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers usage, side effects, credential handling, supported formats, and error behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of a specific return value format on success, but that is not critical for this action-oriented tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining that 'text' should be the rendered Markdown note, not raw JSON, and reinforces when 'kind' is needed. This goes beyond the schema baseline without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Posts a finished standup note to a chat webhook.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_standup_data and get_note_instructions by framing it as the posting action with a side effect.

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 when not to call the tool ('only call it on a note the user has agreed to send') and clarifies when the 'kind' parameter is necessary (only for unrecognized hosts). It also warns that webhook URLs must come from environment variables, not arguments, which guides safe usage.

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