threads_repost

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the required permission scope (threads_content_publish), that publishing is immediate with no container step, and a full failure-recovery procedure for a non-idempotent write. It restates non-idempotency already flagged by idempotentHint, but the added auth and recovery detail is substantial context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, parameter note, return value, and recovery guidance in a logical sequence with no filler. The recovery sentence is long and mentions an internal artifact name ('container', 'REPOST_FACADE') that is dense but functional rather than wasteful.

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 detail is largely free, yet the description still names the returned repost ID. For a non-idempotent mutation with two required IDs, it supplies the permission requirement, the ID format, and the retry-safety procedure — everything an agent needs to call it without causing duplicates.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully pins down post_id ('numeric media ID, not a URL or shortcode'), which is exactly the ambiguity the bare string pattern leaves open, and hints at account_id via 'explicit approval of the account', though it never states what account_id identifies or whether it must match the authenticated account.

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 and resource (repost a post) and immediately scopes it with 'accessible post' and the approval precondition. The clause distinguishing post_id from a URL or shortcode plus the contrast with quote/reply siblings makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('after explicit approval of the account and original'), a stated exclusion ('Do not use it to test access'), and a concrete recovery path after an unknown outcome (check threads_list_posts for REPOST_FACADE or the Reposts tab before retrying). That is when-to-use, when-not, and what-to-do-on-failure in one place.

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