repost

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the action but does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, what side effects occur (e.g., appearing on the user's profile or followers' feeds), whether authentication is required, or what happens if the CID does not match the URI.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, and the required inputs are all present.

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 tool is simple and its parameters are fully documented in the schema, so an agent can determine the call shape. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain the behavioral outcome or return value, leaving some context incomplete.

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 fully documents uri and cid. The description only restates that both are required, adding no new semantic detail beyond the structured schema.

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 ('Repost'), a clear resource ('a Bluesky post'), and the key prerequisite (URI + CID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post, reply_post, like_post, and delete_post without needing to inspect schemas.

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 intended use case is implied by the verb and resource: use this when the user wants to repost an existing post. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against alternatives such as like_post or reply_post.

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