Post a thread

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the validation refusal, the pre-flight kill-rule threshold (score < 45), that the call only records an audit line, and that the real platform POST happens outside this server because it holds no X credentials. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, non-destructive write.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the prerequisite before the operational caveats. Slightly heavy with parentheticals ('verbatim sibling rule', 'score < 45 -> refusal'), but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the call actually returns conceptually (an audit line rather than a posted thread), the prerequisite chain, the refusal gate, and the credential boundary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the result.

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?

With 50% schema coverage and a nested preflight object, the description adds real meaning, clarifying that the posts must be the exact validated text and framing preflight as an optional gate whose score < 45 causes refusal. It does not explain the posts ordering/link convention beyond what the schema comment already says, so it is additive but not exhaustive.

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 states a precise verb and object ('mark a VALIDATED draft as cleared to post NOW') and explicitly distinguishes itself from draft_thread, which produced the text. An agent can tell instantly that this is the publish-approval step, not the drafting or scheduling step.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ('requires the exact posts to have been drafted with draft_thread first') and a refusal condition for unvalidated text. It implies immediate posting vs the schedule_thread sibling ('post NOW') but never names that alternative explicitly, leaving a small routing gap.

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