Boost a status to your followers

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the Mastodon quote-post limitation but does not explain how a boost appears or that it can be undone via unboost_status. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the caveat second. The first sentence repeats the title almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy, but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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 simple one-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus schema and annotations cover the necessary call context. It addresses the main ambiguity (boost vs. comment), account selection is documented in the schema, and idempotency is annotated. Mentioning reversibility would improve completeness but is not essential.

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%, and the account parameter already explains matching rules, defaults, and how to list accounts. The tool description contributes no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Boost a status to your followers') and immediately distinguishes itself from adding a comment. This separates it from related sibling actions like favourite_status, post_status, and unboost_status.

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 tells the agent when not to use this tool: to add a comment instead, post a status quoting the URL because Mastodon has no native quote post. This is a clear when-not/alternative routing that prevents a common misuse.

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