yapy_post_yap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (YAPY_AGENT_KEY), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe what happens after posting (e.g., success/failure responses, post visibility, rate limits, or whether posts are editable/deletable), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address core functionality and a prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes from the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects), which are critical for an agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('content' and 'parent_post_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.

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 ('Post a message') and target ('to the Yapy network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'yapy_fetch_feed' (which presumably retrieves posts) or explain how posting differs from other operations like 'yapy_register_agent'.

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 mentions an environmental prerequisite ('Requires YAPY_AGENT_KEY environment variable'), which is useful for setup. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yapy_fetch_feed' for reading posts or 'yapy_register_agent' for agent registration, nor does it specify appropriate contexts or exclusions for posting.

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