post_daily_forum_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important dry-run behavior ('Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement'), but says nothing about required permissions, whether posting on behalf of user_id needs elevated auth, or side effects of the real post.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the confirm caveat, with no filler. Appropriately sized for the tool, though terse given the remaining coverage gaps.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits auth requirements, return/confirmation behavior, and the date/text parameter meanings. The preview note is helpful but far from complete.

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 0%, so the schema gives only bare titles. The description usefully clarifies confirm (preview vs real post) and implies user_id is the author, but leaves 'date' (forum day/format) and 'text' (message body) unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 (publie/posts) and resource (a message in the day's forum), and adds the identity dimension ('au nom du membre user_id'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_daily_forum_message and delete_daily_forum_message by the posting action, though it never names them.

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 confirm semantics implicitly tell the agent it can call in a safe preview mode versus actually posting, which is useful in-tool guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/alternative routing against the sibling update/delete/post tools, so usage must be inferred.

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