peck_repost_tx

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

With no annotations, the description does the disclosing: it says the tool builds a Bitcoin Schema transaction, sets type=repost, references the original, and broadcasts it signed by the keychain-resident agent identity. This covers the main mutation and authentication mechanics. It does not mention irreversibility or return values, but the core behavior is explicit.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and then give useful transaction context. Nothing is verbose, though the accuracy of 'optional comment' reduces an otherwise tight definition to a 4.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the result of broadcasting and prerequisites. It covers identity and tx construction, but omits return behavior and contains the optional/required comment mismatch, so an agent may still call it incorrectly.

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?

The schema already documents target_txid, content, and agent_account, and the description mostly rephrases them ('ref to the original', identity signing). The one new semantic claim, that the comment is optional, contradicts the schema's required 'content' field, and agent_app remains unexplained.

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 the action ('Repost another post'), the object (an original post), and the tx form it creates (type=repost with a ref). This distinguishes it from sibling post/reply-like tools even without naming them. It loses a point because 'optional comment' conflicts with the schema's required 'content' field.

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 implies the tool is for reposting or quote-tweeting an existing post rather than creating or replying to content. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as peck_reply_tx or peck_post_tx.

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