Restack a Note

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds important context beyond that: the action is 'Public and immediate' and 'refuses to run without confirm: true.' This tells the agent about the real-world consequence and the safety confirmation requirement, going beyond the structured hints.

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, with the core definition front-loaded and the critical confirmation requirement following immediately. Every clause contributes useful information with 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?

For a mutating tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the action does, its public and immediate nature, and the confirmation requirement. It does not mention edge cases like publication selection, but the schema already documents that. The description is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm parameter by saying 'refuses to run without confirm: true,' but this mostly restates the schema description for confirm ('Must be true for this to run'). No additional parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the exact verb and resource: 'Restack a Note' and explains the effect: 'republishes it to your own followers under your name.' This clearly differentiates it from publishing a new note, and the phrase 'Public and immediate' adds a precise behavioral signature. Agents can confidently distinguish this from sibling tools like publish_note.

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 gives clear context: restacking is a public, immediate republish and requires confirm: true. It implies when to use this tool (when you want to share an existing note to your followers), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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