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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations by disclosing role-based permissions (owner, admin, moderator, contributor), queue timing behavior, a default confirmation policy that can be toggled off, external visibility ('reaches other people'), and the Cotlet API key requirement. This is exactly the mutation/auth context annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but contains redundancy: the immediate-vs-queue distinction appears in the opening sentence and again in the mode explanation, and the confirmation caveat is stated twice ('By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call'). Some pruning would tighten it.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: permissions, mode behavior, confirmation policy, and auth. Return-value and error behavior are not addressed, but with no output schema there is little expected there.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what mode=post vs mode=queue actually does (immediate publishing vs staggered queue posting) and the role gating on queue, adding meaning beyond the terse enum labels.

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 (post/create) and resource (a Quora Space) with clear scope, and the 'Space you contribute to / posted now or queued' framing distinguishes it from sibling quora_post_answer and quora_ask_question. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the two operating modes and their selection criteria (post = immediate, queue = staggered and needs admin/moderator role), which is real when-to-use guidance for the mode parameter. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like quora_post_answer, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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