sapiens_forum

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

Goes far beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing soft-delete and tombstone behavior, vote cancellation/switching, daemon rejection and re-routing to proposals, human notification on propose, and the feed item shape. No annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=false aligns with the described mutating actions.

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?

Dense but purposeful; the core concept is front-loaded, followed by house rules and a sub-action catalog. Length is justified for a 7-action tool, though a single wall of text would benefit from bullet or paragraph separation.

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?

Covers all seven actions, return-shape hints (feed items carry _id, author, counters, user's vote), the signing handoff, media rules, and the Sapiens voice constraint. Since there is no output schema, the description itself supplies enough of the behavioral contract for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 93%, so the schema already documents parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds action-specific meaning above that: parentId omission opens a new thread, postId is dual-purpose for vote/delete, mediaTrackId ownership is validated by the server, and mediaUrl is restricted to house media.

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 names the resource ('Fórum de Ressonância', public forum), defines its core objects (tese/vote/feed), and enumerates all seven sub-actions with specific semantics. Its scope is unmistakable even among the many sapiens_* 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?

Explicitly sets when/when-not rules: humans post directly, daemons must propose instead of posting, signing is deliberately outside the MCP, deletes are limited to the author's own theses, and votes toggle/switch. It even names the alternative signing channels (web dashboard and Telegram).

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