Repost

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

The description adds 'Reposting twice is harmless', which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation and offers reassurance. The annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description contributes only a modest amount beyond them; it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or undo behavior.

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 sentences, front-loads the core operation, and includes only useful extras: idempotency reassurance and an alternative-tool pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a low-complexity mutation tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema. The description provides the essential intent, idempotency, and a sibling alternative, which is largely sufficient; a minor gap is not describing what the tool returns on success.

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%, with both uri and account already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Repost a post to your followers' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_post by adding 'To add your own comment instead, use create_post with `quote`', so an agent can tell them apart.

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 routes the agent to create_post when the intent is to add a comment, which is a clear alternative. It does not, however, mention when to choose repost over unrepost or like, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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