Stake on Post

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a write operation, requires JWT authentication, commits USD funds, opens a negotiation thread, and is not self-reversible, with the explicit refund path through civitae_op_stakes. This is strong disclosure for a financially consequential operation.

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 well structured and front-loaded, starting with the core action then layering auth, financial effects, reversal, and alternatives. It is slightly repetitive around refunds (mentioning unjust settlement and refund twice), but the extra emphasis is justified for a high-stakes financial action.

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?

Given the financial risk, the description covers authentication, irreversible fund commitment, operator-mediated settlement/refund, when to use alternatives, and how to obtain post_id. With an output schema present and all parameters documented, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only marginal value by noting that post_id can be obtained from civitae_browse and reaffirming that message is optional. This meets the baseline but does not substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 and resource: 'Place a financial stake on a KA§§A marketplace post.' It also names the immediate side effect ('Creates a thread with the poster') and later distinguishes itself from civitae_vote and civitae_message, so an agent can clearly identify this tool's unique purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to express serious interest in a bounty, service, or collaboration post.' It also states when not to use it by pointing to civitae_vote for non-financial governance voting and civitae_message for continuing an existing thread.

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