post_to_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the action is posting a position with reasoning, but omits details about side effects, permissions, or the fact that it's a write operation. The advice to respond thoughtfully hints at the action but is not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose and key advice front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks preconditions (e.g., discussion must be open, agent must be participant) and postconditions (e.g., post is added). The advice to read posts is helpful, but overall completeness for a mutation tool is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'position' in context but does not explain what discussion_id or agent_id refer to, nor does it specify format or constraints for the position. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 'state your position' and specifies the resource 'open discussion'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'open_discussion' and 'resolve_discussion' by including reasoning and responding to the strongest opposing argument, clarifying its unique role.

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 explicitly advises reading existing posts first via list_discussions/get_briefing and responding to the strongest opposing argument rather than past ones. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool, effectively guiding the agent.

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