create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a mutating write operation and that membership is required, but it does not disclose error behavior for non-members, side effects, visibility of the created post, or what the response contains. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single 13-word sentence with zero fluff. The core action, resource, and constraint are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this one-sentence description is too thin. An agent is left to infer the return value, the meaning of the optional tags field, and what happens on failure (e.g., posting to an unjoined community). For a tool with four parameters, more guidance is warranted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It only references the community concept (mapping to community_id) and the post/thread nature; it does not clarify tags semantics, the optionality of tags, or how body and title relate. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description adds almost no meaning beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb (Create) with a clear resource ('top-level post (thread)') and a scope qualifier ('in a community you have joined'). The word 'top-level' implicitly distinguishes it from create_comment, one of its siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

The phrase 'in a community you have joined' states a prerequisite for using the tool, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_comment, list_posts, or get_post, nor does it give any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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