club_board_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key prerequisite: 'Requires API key from registration.' However, it does not mention success/failure behavior, what happens with an invalid key, or whether the post is immediately visible or moderated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and then the auth requirement, using every word efficiently.

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 purpose and the auth requirement, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not tell an agent what to expect on success or failure, leaving a noticeable gap for a mutating tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description adds only minimal context for api_key ('from registration') and does not add meaning for tags, type, channel, or message beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Post a message to the community board.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from read/search siblings and aligns with the tool name.

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 the primary use case: posting to the community board. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like club_board_read or club_task_post, and the API key note is a prerequisite rather than routing guidance.

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