Add RSS feed

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

The description adds substantial behavioral facts beyond the sparse annotations: the feed is polled every 15 minutes, the server validates reachability of the feed URL, and the organization has a hard limit of 20 feeds. These are all behaviors an agent needs to set expectations and anticipate failures.

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?

Four concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: core purpose, polling behavior, validation/quota, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 complex create operation with six parameters and nested objects, the description covers selection, polling cadence, validation, and quota. It does not describe the response shape, and since there is no output schema, that leaves a minor gap for an agent wanting to know what a successful create returns.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that feedUrl is server-validated as a reachable public feed and that channelIds receive the generated posts. This supplements the schema's already solid parameter descriptions without fully covering every nested option.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an RSS autopost feed.' It clearly explains what the tool does — creates a feed that is polled every 15 minutes and turns new items into posts — and closes with a usage statement that disambiguates it from manual post creation tools like create_post or compose_post.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants new items from an RSS/Atom feed to become posts automatically,' which gives a clear trigger condition. It does not name explicit alternatives to avoid, nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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