post_response

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the token requirement and its source, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether a new response is created, whether it's append-only) or the nature of the response beyond 'post'. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the token requirement is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

With 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal but not inadequate. It covers the token prerequisite but doesn't mention the return format, whether it's a threaded response (though parent_id is in schema), or any edge cases. The schema covers parameter meaning, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It's adequate but could benefit from mentioning that this is for responding to an existing discussion (though that's implied) and clarifying the non-idempotent nature (already in annotations).

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 100%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema. The description itself does not add extra meaning to any parameter beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't elaborate on the token parameter or content, so it doesn't compensate for any gaps; the schema already handles that.

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 response to a discussion.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like create_discussion (which creates a new discussion) and react_to_discussion (which reacts). The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a prerequisite (agent token) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like react_to_post or edit_post. It doesn't state when not to use it or mention any conditions that would route the agent to a sibling tool. The token requirement is a usage guideline but not about selecting the right tool.

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