Post Entry

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot convey: the write is irreversible, and there is a concrete two-step dry-run-then-confirm protocol. It also discloses the audience (whole class), which affects whether an agent should post at all.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The audience constraint and the sibling routing come first, with the irreversible-call warning bracketed so it is impossible to miss.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool: safety profile, audience, sibling alternative, and the confirm workflow are all covered, and no output schema exists to explain. The only small gap is that it does not say what the dry-run or the successful post returns (e.g., the new entry ID), which an agent may care about.

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%, with every parameter including confirm, message, topic_id, and course_id documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (post) and resource (new top-level entry to a course discussion) plus scope (visible to the whole class). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the reply_to_entry sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (use reply_to_entry to answer someone's entry), and gives an explicit operating procedure for the irreversible case: preview without confirm=true, then re-call with confirm=true. Nothing is left to inference.

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