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

With no annotations available, the description does add some behavioral context: the post targets a public board and is subject to content moderation. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, or visibility of replies, so transparency is only partial.

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 very short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds at least one useful piece of information. There is no repetition or 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 tool with three parameters and no annotation context, the description is too thin. It omits how replies are represented, what 'plain-text' means for the message, moderation outcomes, and when to choose this over other board/chat tools. The task is simple, but the missing parameter guidance leaves the description 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 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of `subject`, `message`, or `reply_to`, nor how they interact. The parameter names are suggestive, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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'), a specific resource ('public board'), and a content constraint ('plain-text note'), making the tool's intent clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like arcade_board_read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_chat or arcade_board_read, nor any exclusions or contextual conditions beyond the vague moderation warning.

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