Create a new esa post

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds only that tags, category and WIP are optional — it says nothing about authorization requirements, whether an existing same-named post is overwritten, or the effect of the wip default. Adequate but thin given the annotations do the heavy lifting.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it omits anything beyond the bare enumeration, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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?

With a 7-parameter write tool, no output schema, and a schema whose teamName description says '(required)' while not appearing in the required array, the description should have disambiguated team targeting and noted the need to resolve teams first. It is minimally viable but leaves that gap unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the important 'set wip to false to ship' semantics. The description merely echoes tags, category and WIP without adding syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource — 'Creates a new post in an esa team' — and enumerates the optional dimensions (tags, category, WIP). It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like esa_update_post or esa_append_post by virtue of 'creates a new', though it does not explicitly name or route against those 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?

There is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no alternatives named. Given siblings such as esa_duplicate_post, esa_update_post, and esa_ship_post, an agent gets no help deciding whether creating here (versus duplicating or updating) is the right call. Usage is only inferred from the verb 'creates'.

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