Post Agora Message

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

Annotations cover the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond them: the feed is publicly readable and every message is signed. It stops short of stating who may post, whether signing requires a pre-registered key, or whether posted messages are immutable.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title or with other fields.

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 output schema, the description omits what happens after a post (message ID, threading linkage to reply_to) and any permission/signing prerequisites. Annotations cover the safety profile but the description leaves the posting workflow under-explained.

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 100% with five well-described parameters including an enum for type, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it (e.g., no guidance on topic naming or subject length).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Post a signed message to the Agora feed.' An agent can identify it as the write-side counterpart to the read-only get_agora_* siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other messaging siblings such as send_message or broadcast.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the plausible alternatives (broadcast, send_message, request_intro) are mentioned. The 'Anyone can read' clause hints at audience scope but does not say when this tool is the right channel versus other messaging tools.

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