ask_support

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description explains why a nominally diagnostic tool is not read-only: a human ticket can be created, but only with both request_human=true and confirm_escalation=true after explicit user confirmation. It also discloses the required auth scopes, which annotations cannot express. Missing only rate limits, cost, and whether the ticket creation is reversible.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before prerequisites and escalation rules, with no filler. Slight redundancy between 'for the caller workspace' and the workspace_id parameter description, but nothing wasteful enough to cut.

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?

Covers auth and the escalation safety gate well for an 8-parameter tool, but with no output schema the description never indicates what comes back (an answer plus diagnostics? a conversation handle?) or how conversation_id/workspace_id defaults interact. An agent knows the guardrails but not the shape of the result.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, and the description adds mainly the two-flag escalation protocol that the schema fields also describe. It does not clarify the relationship between post_id and referenced_post_ids, or what conversation_id continuation changes about behavior, so it adds little beyond structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask posterly Support AI an authenticated question') and names the ingredients used ('posterly docs plus read-only account/post diagnostics for the caller workspace'). That is distinguishable from sibling feedback/status tools like submit_agent_feedback or posterly_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives prerequisite conditions (POSTERLY_API_KEY with accounts:read and posts:read) and the escalation gate (request_human + confirm_escalation after explicit user confirmation), which is genuine when-to guidance. It never says when to prefer this over submit_agent_feedback, submit_product_feedback, or posterly_status, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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