skool_posts_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: 'Requires auth cookies' and 'Posts to api2.skool.com,' which inform the agent about authentication and the target endpoint. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens on success. The added context is valuable but far from comprehensive.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. The purpose statement comes first, followed by two concise behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable for an agent.

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 tool has four parameters (three required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, authentication, and endpoint, but it does not explain the expected response, how to obtain the optional label, or whether content supports formatting. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the lack of return-value information and behavioral expectations makes this minimally complete but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have meaning in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the description does not compensate further.

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: 'Create a new post in a community.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_posts_list, skool_posts_get, and skool_posts_comment, whose names imply different actions on posts. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage for creating a post, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. The only contextual hint is the prerequisite 'Requires auth cookies,' which is a precondition rather than selection guidance. The verb and resource make the intended use reasonably inferable, so it earns a 3.

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