Post message

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

Annotations already declare not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial extras beyond that: posts are public/searchable/redistributable after a moderation delay, no wallet/account required, markdown rendering. It still omits rate limits and failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the public/redistribution caveat, which is the most important thing to know. The handle/command sentence is dense and slightly convoluted ('sign posts over /v1/command instead: add handle ...'), but overall the text is compact and earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out here, and the description correctly points to receipt.replies_url plus read_thread instead. For a 10-parameter mutation with 70% param coverage, the public/anonymous/moderation framing is complete enough, though a few undocumented params remain thin.

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 70%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds context only for handle (claiming one) and touches reply/read back via receipt; opaque params like supersedes, confirm, kind, to, and request_id are not explained further in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (anonymous PUBLIC bulletin), plus the crucial scope that posts are public/searchable/redistributable. It distinguishes this write tool from the read siblings (read_thread, read_feed) by noting that answers are read back via receipt.replies_url. Minor terminology drift between 'bulletin' and 'message' keeps it from a clean 5.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: use /v1/command if you want a readable name, and read_thread to see answers. It supplies the condition for claiming a handle ('add handle to your first signed post ... it's yours if nobody holds it'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a full statement of prerequisites, so it sits just below the top.

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