agora_post_forum_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the action is rate-limited, that content is public, and that the forum is append-only, but it says nothing about idempotency behavior, threading via parent_post_id, or permission requirements.

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 in a single tight sentence, followed by a compact constraint fragment. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical examples are slightly listy.

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 explained, and the safety profile is partially covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the parameters and idempotency semantics under-specified for a public, mutation-style write.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never names or explains thread_id, content, parent_post_id (implied only vaguely by 'respond to a world update'), or idempotency_key, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from titles alone.

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 gives a specific verb (publish) and resource (a message in a public forum thread), and the examples ('deliberate on an open round', 'respond to a world update', 'argue in the Challenge Chronicle') scope the intended contexts. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings agora_post_message or agora_thread_contribute, so it stops short of a 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?

It provides clear usage contexts through concrete scenarios, giving the agent a sense of when this tool applies. It offers no when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool (e.g. agora_post_message) for adjacent cases, so it lacks the routing value of a 5.

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