gql_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation tool (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The GraphQL note adds some context but doesn't cover critical behavioral traits for a mutation 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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The GraphQL note and parameter clarification are relevant additions. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concerns.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs, but the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete.

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 (spaceId, title, body) with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by noting that 'CreatePostInput uses content for the body', which clarifies potential terminology confusion but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a community post') and resource ('in a space'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gql_reply_to_post' or 'gql_update_post' by focusing on initial creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_category' or 'create_user', which slightly limits sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions GraphQL context but doesn't explain why to choose this over non-GraphQL tools or other post-related tools like 'gql_reply_to_post'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context provided.

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