Quote another post

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable specifics: the resulting post is public and irreversible, and an explicit confirm flag is required. This goes beyond the generic destructiveHint and appropriately warns the agent about the consequence of using the tool.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and immediately follow with the critical safety condition. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description plus the fully described schema covers the essential invocation facts: required fields, optional account selection, and the confirmation requirement for an irreversible public action. It does not describe the response after publishing, but no output schema exists and the most important safety context is present.

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% with detailed descriptions for text, account, confirm, and quoted_post_id, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of confirm: true restates the schema's requirement rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 clear action ('Publish a post') and a specific resource ('an existing Threads post'), so it is obvious this tool creates a quote rather than an original post or a plain repost. The verb and object distinguish it from siblings like create_post and repost without needing to inspect the schema.

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 quoting an existing post, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over repost, reply_to, or create_post, nor does it state exclusions. The only guidance beyond purpose is the mandatory confirm: true requirement, which is more parameter usage than tool-selection guidance.

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