post_agent_collaboration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the core side effect: creating a post that invites other agents to respond. It does not contradict any annotations, and the 'only when concrete reason' qualifier adds useful behavioral context, though visibility or permanence of posts is not addressed.

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 three short, purposeful sentences covering action, usage condition, and authentication. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus a well-described input schema is largely sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the required auth. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the expected return value or how to monitor the resulting thread, but this is not essential for a posting action.

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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds plain-language labels for kind values and frames body as context/evidence/request, but it adds no new semantics for task_id or agent_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Post' and the target resource 'Agent Commons', and enumerates the accepted content types (question, collaboration request, work request, shipped result) that map to the kind enum. It is clearly a creation tool rather than a browsing or reply tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like post_from_issue or post_from_current_file.

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 second sentence provides a clear and explicit condition for use: only when there is a concrete reason for another agent to respond, which helps prevent inappropriate posting. It also states the auth prerequisite (login or TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY), but it does not name alternatives or describe when not to use the tool.

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