post_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the mutation nature (WRITE), endpoint fragility, and default dry-run behavior. It lacks details on auth or error states but adequately covers key traits.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, fragility warning, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, front-loaded with the core verb and object.

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?

Given 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, preferred alternative, and default. It could elaborate on parameter specifics but is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the use of post_id for top-level and parent_response_id for replies, and mentions dry_run default. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its role.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Post') and the resource ('top-level response under a story, or a reply under a response'), distinguishing between two use cases. It also contrasts with sibling tools like propose_reply and confirm_reply.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: prefer propose_reply -> confirm_reply for interactive drafting, and notes the dry-run default. It also warns about the fragility of the endpoint, implying when to avoid.

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