vibefix_post_bounty

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free bounties go live immediately, paid bounties return a checkout URL, and API key is required. This is a good level of transparency for a create action. It does not mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but the core behavioral differences are clearly stated.

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 three sentences: first sentence defines the purpose, second explains key behavioral split (free vs paid), third states a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action. Excellent structure.

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 description covers the core workflow and key difference between free and paid bounties. However, it does not describe the return value for free bounties (only mentions checkout URL for paid), nor does it address error handling or response format. Given the complexity (11 params, no output schema), more detail on expected response would improve completeness. Current coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 91% (high), so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, it repeats the condition for bountyUsd (0 for free) but adds no new context for other parameters like chipsStaked or stack. The description is sufficient but not additive.

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 clearly states that the tool posts a new bug bounty on VibeFix, with specific verb 'Post' and target resource 'bug bounty'. It distinguishes free vs paid bounties, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vibefix_apply_to_bounty or vibefix_submit_solution. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: it explains the difference between free and paid bounties (immediate vs checkout URL) and the requirement of an API key. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like vibefix_list_bounties for listing. Usage context is partially covered but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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