repost_thread

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Repost/share another thread' without mentioning whether the action is reversible, requires authentication, or has any side effects on the original thread. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

At four words, the description is extremely concise and free of filler, making it easy to parse. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and omits important context, so it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), one might argue the description is sufficient, but it does not explain what 'repost' entails, how it relates to the sibling 'unrepost_thread', or what the expected outcome is. With no output schema to clarify return values, the description leaves the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's 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 describes post_id as 'ID of the post to repost' with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'another thread', which is semantically redundant. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema information, but it also adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Repost/share' and names the resource 'another thread', which clearly states the action. However, it does not provide scope or differentiate from sibling tools like quote_post or unrepost_thread, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quote_post or unrepost_thread. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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