storm_publish_thread

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits: it publishes in parallel, notes Threads is slower due to container polling/propagation delays, and Twitter is near-instant. It also mentions the return format. However, with no annotations, it does not cover permissions, failure modes, or reversibility of posts, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description is well-structured with separate sections for action, timing, args, and returns. It is concise, with every sentence earning its place, and the 'hero tool' note adds a slight motivational tone without harming clarity.

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 tool with moderate complexity (dual-platform publishing, parallelism, timing differences), the description covers input, output, and behavioral differences. It does not detail error handling or partial failures, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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 only shows a 'posts' array with no description, but the description's Args section explicitly explains that posts is 'List of text strings to publish as a thread on both platforms.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it lacks constraints like limits or formatting.

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 ('publish'), the resource ('a thread to BOTH Threads and Twitter/X simultaneously'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing the dual-platform nature. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you want to publish to both platforms), and the phrase 'This is the hero tool' suggests it is the preferred approach for that scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use separate tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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