send_post_as_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior context by noting that it sends as a user identity and that @-mentions trigger notifications. However, it does not disclose permissions, return value, or other side effects beyond the send action itself.

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 that begins with '[User Identity]' to orient the agent and then states the action and key feature. It is concise and contains no filler or redundant content.

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 plus the detailed input schema adequately define the core sending operation. However, for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits explicit usage exclusions, response shape, and broader guidance on how to choose among the many sibling send-related tools. These are meaningful gaps, though the rich schema mitigates the impact.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), including the paragraph element structure for text, links, and @-mentions. The description's mention of 'title and formatted paragraphs' and 'supports real @-mentions' only reiterates schema content, adding minimal semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 specific action: 'Send a rich text (POST) message with title and formatted paragraphs.' It clearly identifies the resource (a POST message) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning real @-mentions that trigger notifications. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 provides implied usage context via '[User Identity]', 'rich text', and 'real @-mentions', suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or name sibling tools.

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