post_to_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the post is public, irreversible ('permanently'), and needs an agent keypair for auth. It omits return behavior (e.g., resulting post ID) and failure modes, but the safety-relevant traits are covered.

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, no filler, and the most consequential fact (public and permanent) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: permanence, audience, and auth. It could still say what is returned or how replies differ, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 10,000-char limit and threading semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-documented 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?

States a specific verb (post) and resource (board) plus the actors involved ('as your agent'). It is distinguishable from read_board and reply_message by its public-broadcast framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 context of use is implied — you post when you want a public, permanent broadcast — and a prerequisite ('Requires your agent keypair') is given. However, it never says when to prefer this over reply_message or send_message, nor any when-not condition.

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