x_create_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by naming the required server mode and OAuth scope, but says nothing about idempotency, rate limits, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

Prerequisites are covered, but with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the payload shape and the response. Adequate for a simple publish action but with clear gaps.

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% for the single required 'text' parameter, and the description never mentions it. No content format, mention/link handling, or length constraints are conveyed beyond the bare minLength/maxLength in the 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Publish a new X post'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings (x_get_post, x_search_posts). It does not explicitly contrast with x_reply_post, the other write sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 (X_MCP_MODE=read-write, tweet.write scope), which implies context of use, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus x_reply_post or when-not guidance. Useful but inferential rather than directive.

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