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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in the annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and exceeds it: tail-of-board placement, thread-keyed dedup onto one row, the draft_only posture on Reddit/Hacker News, an absolute prohibition on posting to those communities, a per-day quota, and idempotent return of an existing move id. This is far more than the annotations alone convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a labeled WHEN section and a WHAT COMES BACK section. Roughly 150 words for a 6-parameter mutation tool with dedup, posture, and quota rules is justified, though the middle sentence is dense and slightly run-on.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly takes responsibility for return values ('the move id and posture') and covers the key edge case (already-on-board returning the existing id). Constraints (never post, quota, draft_only) and the follow-up step (update_draft) are all present. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented (title naming, why length, kind enum, target address, draft, sources). The description adds modest color — relating kind to the draft_only posture and why to the 'twenty minutes' framing — but does not meaningfully extend per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Put a discussion thread you found onto the founder's growth board as a pending move.' This clearly separates propose_move from the move-lifecycle siblings (ship_move, skip_move, archive_move, undo_move, get_move) by anchoring on the 'pending' state, and the draft_only posture further pins down its role versus the founder-posting tools.

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?

An explicit WHEN clause states the trigger: a thread the board does not already carry, read on a community the founder works, with a reason it is worth their time. The dedup line ('A thread already on the board hands back its existing move id') implies the when-not case, and update_draft is named as the follow-up. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with related siblings such as ship_move or skip_move, so the guidance stops short of a full 5.

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