b24_feed_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool publishes a message with BB-code support, but does not disclose side effects, visibility rules, authentication requirements, or whether the post is editable/deletable. The schema's mention of read-only webhooks hints at auth, but the description does not.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 a mutating tool, the description is too thin. It omits what happens after the post is published, whether a webhook is required for writes, and the fact that an empty destination publishes to everyone. An agent can infer some of this from the schema but the description does not provide the needed context.

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 86%, so most parameters already carry explanatory text. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema: BB-code support is also mentioned in the message parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Publica') and a specific resource ('feed de actividad (Live Feed) de Bitrix24'), and adds BB-code support as a distinctive capability. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like b24_chat_send or b24_notify_send, but the resource is concrete enough to be unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like b24_chat_send, b24_notify_send, and b24_crm_timeline_add, an agent gets no help choosing the correct feed-related tool.

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