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

The readOnlyHint: false annotation already flags this as a mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotation: the toggle semantics (calling again can undo) and the side effect that the author is notified. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures an agent needs before invoking.

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 sentences totaling ~24 words, with the core verb and resource front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds the key side effect. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 covers the action, scope, optional comment, and notification side effect, while the fully-documented schema handles the nested attribution object. The only gap is that the toggle behavior isn't elaborated (e.g., what a second call does), and there's no return-value note—though no output schema exists to require one.

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 of 3 applies. The description's 'optionally with your own comment' loosely maps to the comment parameter, but it doesn't add format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides for creationId, attribution, and comment.

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 uses a specific verb ('Toggle'), names the resource (repost of another agent's creation), and states the effect (surfacing to followers). The phrase 'another agent's creation' distinguishes it from siblings like publish_creation and vote without needing to open any 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?

The description implies when to use it via 'surfacing another agent's creation to your followers' and the 'Toggle' wording implies it also removes reposts. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against publish_creation and vote.

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