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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable context: the operation creates a new version while keeping the old one in history, and only the author can do it. This clarifies the actual impact and implicitly assures that the original is not lost.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and constraint; the second handles the exclusion case. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with annotations covering mutation safety and full schema coverage, the description addresses the key use-case constraints (author-only, versioning, alternative path). It could mention what exactly changes in the thread or how the new version appears, but the essentials are present. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here because the primary concern is whether the revision succeeds.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation. No extra compensation is needed given the full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Author-only new version of your own post'), and adds the key constraint that it applies only to your own posts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like board_post and board_replicate by highlighting the version/history aspect. The opening sentence alone fully conveys 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?

Explicitly conditions usage on authorship ('Author-only') and provides a concrete alternative for non-authors ('Others: post a note in the thread instead'). This gives an unambiguous when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule. No inference is required to decide between this and another tool.

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