ms_post_document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explaining the financial and stock movements. It also details the safety guard parameters, ensuring the agent understands the risk.

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 concise, starting with the core action and effects, then destructiveness, then parameters, then return value. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the destructive nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, required inputs, safety parameters, and the possible return (updated document or error). It is comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it lists valid doc_type values, explains doc_id as the ID from creation, and clarifies that confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data are confirmation flags. It could provide more detail on defaults, but is sufficient.

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 that the tool posts a document by setting applicable=true, which moves stock and money. It explicitly separates this action from creation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ms_create_document.

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 description specifies the requirement for confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true, emphasizing the destructive nature. It implies use after creation but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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