threads_quote_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: ~30 second processing latency, text sent unchanged, permission scope required, and a duplicate-publication hazard with a named inspection step on timeout or unknown outcome. The only minor gap is that the 'approval' gate is not explained operationally, leaving the agent unsure how approval is signalled.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct constraint or hazard, and the most important gate (approval/prerequisites) is front-loaded ahead of formatting limits and retry procedure. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. Prerequisites, latency, non-idempotency and retry safety are all covered; the residual ambiguity is what 'approval of the account, original post and text' means and how an agent verifies it before calling.

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 carries the load, and it does: post_id is constrained to the numeric media ID and explicitly not a URL or shortcode, and text must be non-blank and at most 500 characters. account_id is only indirectly characterized via the approval/permission sentence, so it is not fully covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a text quote', and the qualifier 'after approval of the account, original post and text' narrows the case. It is reasonably distinguishable from threads_publish_text and threads_repost, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those two closest 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?

It states prerequisites ('Requires threads_content_publish and access to the original'), an explicit prohibition ('Do not use this tool to test permissions'), and a concrete recovery path naming the sibling threads_list_posts and the field quoted_post.id before retrying. That is when/when-not/alternative coverage in one paragraph.

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