Post a link ad with credits

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

With no annotations, the description covers key side effects: credit usage, derived view_time/view_credits, pending vs active status, and the paid-membership requirement. It does not mention failure modes like insufficient credits, but the core behavior is 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 duplicated verbatim, doubling the length without adding any new information. This severely violates the conciseness principle, as every sentence should earn its place.

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 return fields, membership requirements, approval flow, and credit derivation, providing enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks explicit error handling details but is otherwise 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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds meaningful business context: ad_days is constrained to 0, icon/bold/double_time affect credits, and double_time is exemplified with a concrete credit cost.

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 clearly states the tool posts an existing link ad into rotation using credits and mirrors the web free-post flow. It distinguishes this from create_link and other post_* siblings by emphasizing existing links and credit-based placement.

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 explicit constraints: ad_days must be 0, sponsored placements are not available, and a paid membership is required. It also explains approval behavior, though it does not explicitly compare with post_banner or post_press_release.

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