Post a status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the status becomes public the moment it runs, the action needs explicit confirmation, and the character limit depends on the instance. It does not contradict the annotations and communicates the irreversible nature beyond what the flags convey.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the operation, then summarizing capabilities, then delivering the two most important caveats. The capability list partially mirrors the schema, but the critical warnings are prominent and there is no padding.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key selection and safety information: what it does, the high-stakes public/immediate behavior, the confirmation requirement, and a per-instance constraint. It could be stronger by explicitly routing to post_thread for multi-status scenarios, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps.

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?

With 92% schema description coverage the schema carries most parameter meaning, but the description adds real value for the `status` and `confirm` parameters: it warns to check get_instance_info for the per-instance character limit and explains why confirm:true is mandatory. That is more than the schema alone provides, though most other parameters still rely on the 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?

The description opens with 'Publish a status' and enumerates the supported capability set (text, media with alt text, content warning, poll, reply, visibility, scheduling), making the core operation unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like post_thread or edit_status, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It provides clear practical context: check get_instance_info before drafting long content because the character limit is per-instance, and confirm:true is required because the result is public and irreversible. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit routing but is more than a bare prerequisite.

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