publish_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create and publish a new thread,' which repeats the tool name and implies a write operation. No details about authentication, rate limits, media handling, publishing behavior, or side effects are given. This is insufficient 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 a single short sentence, 'Create and publish a new thread.' It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it provides no additional guidance, so it is not optimally informative, but it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has 4 parameters (including an enum for media type), a clear write operation, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain important context such as whether publishing is immediate, how media_url interacts with media_type, or any constraints. The profile of this tool is comparable to mid/low examples where more detail is needed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter already having a description (e.g., 'text' as 'The text content of the thread'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.

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 tool's function: 'Create and publish a new thread.' It uses a specific verb ('Create and publish') and resource ('a new thread'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_thread_chain', it is unambiguous for a thread publishing action.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'create_reply', 'schedule_post', or 'create_post_with_restrictions'. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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