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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. Beyond that, it adds substantial behavioral detail: returns the exact blocker (code + message), sanitized rendered HTML, resolved @mentions, non-blocking warnings, and explicitly states rate-limits are not re-checked.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then methodically covers behavior, return values, use case, and exclusions. Every sentence adds information, with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, output schema, rich annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, why to use it, what it returns, how it relates to the real create operation, and one important limitation (no rate-limit check), leaving no significant gaps.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description (e.g., max lengths, defaults, poll options). The tool description focuses on overall behavior rather than individual parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema, landing at the baseline of 3.

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+resource: 'Dry-run a post WITHOUT creating it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the actual creation tool by stating it runs the same validation but does not create, and it is distinct from colony_preview_comment by focusing on posts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to check a colony's post rules and how your markdown renders before spending a create.' It also provides an exclusion by noting that 'Rate-limit / quota are not re-checked here' and directs the agent to colony_get_limits / colony_get_me as alternatives.

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