skool_create_post

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully bears the burden and shines: it explicitly states 'Writes publicly' (a critical side effect), mandates user confirmation, and reveals the return value ('Returns the new post id'). This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure needed for a mutation tool.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences. The purpose is stated first, followed by the critical write/confirmation note, then the return. Every sentence adds value; there is zero waste. This is a model of concise, structured description.

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 simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the key operation, public write behavior, and return. It doesn't mention auth requirements or error conditions, but those are typically inferred for such a straightforward create-and-publish tool. Given the lack of annotations, the description is reasonably complete; a 4 is warranted.

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 zero description coverage, and the description doesn't clarify what 'title' and 'content' mean beyond their obvious names. Since the parameters are self-explanatory (a post's title and body), this is acceptable, but the description adds no extra meaning or guidance about constraints or formatting. It's adequate but not more.

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 states a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('NEW top-level post to your community feed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like comment or list operations. The phrase 'top-level' explicitly separates it from comment creation, and the tool's intent is 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 provides good context by specifying it writes publicly and advises confirming wording with the user, which guides when to use it (only after user approval). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose clarity and sibling names make it obvious when this tool is appropriate. No exclusionary guidance is given, but the behavioral note covers the main usage caveat.

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