ariel_quote_post

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the quote-specific behavior beyond those annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or how the quoted content is rendered. It is minimally 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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the size matches the low complexity of the tool.

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?

Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the definition is adequate to understand what the tool does and what parameters are needed. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return behavior or auth prerequisites, so the context is functional but not complete for an agent needing richer operational detail.

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 text, langs, and quotedUri. The description only reinforces the quotedUri concept and adds no additional meaning about formats, interactions, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Create') + specific resource ('a post that quotes another post'), which distinguishes it from ordinary create_post or reply. The quote behavior is the core distinguishing feature and it is explicit.

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 implies this tool should be used when the user wants to quote an existing post, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative (reply, repost, create_post) to choose instead. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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