Create a post

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the core action (publish) and the ability to reply, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, publication visibility, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and the key optional behavior. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool is relatively simple (publish a post), and the description plus schema cover the essential aspects, including reply usage. Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The only minor gap is that the description does not hint at the thread-root requirements for nested replies, but the schema handles those details.

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 input schema already covers 80% of the parameters with detailed descriptions, especially the reply-related fields. The description adds the phrase 'optionally as a reply' but does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 description uses a specific verb (publish) and a clear resource (post/skeet), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it creates new content rather than reading, deleting, or interacting with existing posts. The optional reply behavior is also stated, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is used for publishing new posts, which is the natural counterpart to read-only or interaction tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the intended use obvious enough.

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