x_submit_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the post is PUBLIC and IMMEDIATE with 'no draft step,' which signals irreversibility. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, and does not clarify what the empty-string default for `account` means.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the critical behavioral warning. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The public/immediate nature of the action is well covered and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for an irreversible publish tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, the absence of any auth/account-resolution guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters. It references `account` by name in backticks but says nothing about its semantics (e.g., which account is used when it defaults to empty), and `text` is never mentioned at all.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('new standalone post on X'), and the word 'standalone' implicitly separates it from the sibling tools x_submit_reply, x_submit_quote, and x_submit_repost. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Standalone' hints that this is the non-reply/non-quote path, but the description never explicitly names the alternatives or states when to pick this over x_submit_reply or x_submit_quote. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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