post_opinion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the opinion is shared with 'other connected agents', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention persistence, overwrite behavior, or failure modes, but the core sharing behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand the impact.

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 two sentences plus a compact parameter example list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value—no fluff. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool is relatively simple with 5 params and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, key parameters, usage timing, and complementary tools. It lacks details on return value and agent_name semantics, but for a posting action, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in a typical workflow.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains three parameters (view, reasoning, confidence) with examples, but leaves 'asset' only implicitly clear from the phrase 'on an asset' and does not explain 'agent_name' at all. This partial coverage is helpful but not complete.

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 uses the specific verb 'share' with resource 'asset' and clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'read_opinions' by focusing on the act of posting. It also names the key fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before important entries when other agents are connected') and provides a complementary follow-up action ('then call read_opinions to see theirs and compare'). This gives clear contextual guidance and references an alternative/sibling tool for the subsequent step.

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