ariel_repost

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

The annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive action, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It doesn't explain that a repost record is created, whether a URI is returned, or that the action can be reversed via ariel_unrepost.

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 one short, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it mostly restates what the tool name already implies, providing little extra informational value.

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?

For a mutating action with no output schema, this is too thin. An agent isn't told what a successful repost returns, how it differs from quote-posting or liking, or that it can be undone, all of which matter for correct tool selection and expected behavior.

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 already covers the single parameter at 100% and gives a useful type description: 'AT URI or bsky.app URL of the post to repost'. The description above adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: repost a post. The action is clear and unmistakable, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as ariel_quote_post or ariel_like beyond the function name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention preconditions, use cases, or how to choose between reposting and posting a quote, liking, or un-reposting.

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