x_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does this well: it reveals that posts are immediately public, reversible via deletion, yet exposure persists after deletion ('everyone who saw it still saw it'). This is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the schema, though it omits other operational traits like rate limits or auth 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?

Three sentences, with the core action front-loaded and each subsequent clause adding distinct behavioral context. The prose is slightly conversational but every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 covers purpose and side effects well but, given there is no output schema, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a post ID), which an agent would need for follow-up actions like x_delete_post. It also doesn't compensate for the two undocumented parameters. Adequate for a straightforward create tool, but with clear gaps.

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 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for text, media_ids, and reply_to_post_id. The two undocumented parameters (quote_post_id, reply_settings) remain unaddressed by the description, and the opening phrase 'Post to X' is purpose, not parameter semantics. The schema carries most of the load, so a midpoint score 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Post to X') that unambiguously states the tool's function. The write-versus-destructive clarification further distinguishes it from the sibling x_delete_post, so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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 implies this is the tool for creating posts versus deleting them, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives or names a sibling. The 'immediately public' and 'can be deleted afterwards' context hints at consequences the agent should weigh, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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