quote_post

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. However, it only states the basic action and fails to mention that quoting usually creates a new post, embeds the quoted content, respects reply_control, or has other side effects. This leaves unexpected behavior unaddressed.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It communicates the core purpose efficiently without wasting words, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context to be complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how media and reply controls work in practice, or the overall behavior of a quote post. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of the operation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each property described, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote') with a clear resource ('another thread/post') and states the action context ('with your own text'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_reply or repost_thread, which have different semantics.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_reply, repost_thread, or publish_thread. The description gives no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, so the agent must infer when quoting is preferred.

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