post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the post-write tier assignment logic (pending/test/self/verified), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it omits mutation semantics, idempotency, auth requirements, and any side effects of writing a row.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the call shape. The tier-label enumeration is compact and information-bearing rather than padding.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it explains the resulting tier labels but leaves every parameter's semantics, prerequisites, and failure behavior undocumented.

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 names all five parameters and restates the non-empty-string constraint (already in the schema), but gives no meaning for card, job, proof, incident, or cap, leaving the agent unable to reason about what to pass.

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 names an action (POST /room) and enumerates the five required inputs, so the mechanics are visible, but it never explains what a 'room' is or what resource is being created, leaving the actual purpose vague. It also doesn't distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling room_post.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The tier-labeling rules hint that this participates in a verification workflow alongside verify/cap_check, but the agent is left to infer that routing entirely on its own.

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