Post a thread

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

It adds valuable behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: atomic pre-validation, immediate publication, and the need for confirm:true. However, it also makes inaccurate claims, referencing a 'poll' parameter absent from the schema and stating the content warning applies to the first part when the schema says it applies to every part.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, atomicity second, and placement/confirmation third. The only structural flaw is the inaccurate poll and content-warning clause, which undermines an otherwise economical definition.

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?

It covers the most critical operational facts: all parts are validated upfront, nothing publishes halfway, and confirm is required. Yet it lacks explicit guidance favoring post_status for single posts and contains a factual mismatch about poll and content-warning behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for a complex, irreversible mutation.

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 high, but the description adds incorrect parameter-level information: it mentions a poll that does not exist in the schema and contradicts the spoiler_text semantics. It provides no correct parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Publish several statuses as one thread, each replying to the last.' This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from single-status posting via post_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 implies this tool is for multi-status threads, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over post_status or when not to use it. Usage context is clear only by inference from the name and phrasing, not from explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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