upsert_share_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the tool is disabled. It does not describe what happens if called, such as an error or no-op, or explain why direct mutation is disallowed, but 'disabled' is meaningful and prevents the agent from expecting a normal mutation.

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 extremely compact, with both sentences earning their place: the first states the disabled status and the second gives the replacement path. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 disabled tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately signals not to use it and points to an alternative workflow. However, it does not explain the original purpose, the exact alternative tool, or what 'reviewed payload workflow' refers to, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has one required parameter, post_id, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the meaning, role, or format of post_id, so the agent receives no semantic guidance for this parameter.

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 labels the tool as a 'Disabled direct mutation tool,' which conveys status and general action type, but never states what a 'share block' is or what the tool originally did. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings beyond saying it is disabled.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Use a reviewed payload workflow instead,' which provides an alternative path and implies this tool should not be used. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool or define what the reviewed payload workflow entails, leaving the routing somewhat vague.

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