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

Without annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond being a write operation. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., slug uniqueness, overwrite behavior), permission requirements, or rate limits. The agent must guess at the tool's behavior.

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?

While the single sentence is concise, it is under-specified given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. The description is too brief to be useful, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

The description lacks essential context for effective use. With 5 parameters (including optional body, tags, status) and no schema descriptions, the agent needs more guidance. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged but not leveraged in description.

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 description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. For example, 'slug' and 'status' could have ambiguous formats or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a post on a board'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment or create_board. However, it lacks additional context about what constitutes a post or board.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_post or propose_status. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which creation would fail.

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