Create post

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: category validation happens before the approval wait and fails fast with the group's categories in the error message, and poll_options nests a poll under the text. It doesn't explain the approval flow outcome or what is returned after publishing.

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?

Lead sentence carries the core action, with constraints and failure behavior following in a tight four-sentence block. The second sentence restates much of the first (feed, category, authorship), costing a small amount of redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, authorship, category validation and its error behavior, poll attachment, and the media limitation. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented including poll_options' 2–10 range. The description adds only the framing that poll_options places the poll "under the text" and that category matching is case-insensitive via the group's own naming, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Publish a post to the community feed in a category, as you") plus scope and authorship semantics. An agent can immediately tell this apart from update_post, comment_on_post, or create_category among the siblings.

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?

Clear context for use (new post in a group category, authored by the caller) and an explicit exclusion constraint: "Text only; images and files are not uploaded." It does not explicitly name update_post as the alternative for editing existing posts, so routing guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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