Publish a post to an Oase's feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return value (post id), explains that comments are thread replies (routing to send_message), that react_to_message works on post ids, and notes the markdown body support and the optional title. It also discloses the restriction error. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and user context, then provides actionable details (return value, alternate usage, error). There is no filler; the length is justified by the amount of necessary information for a post-creation tool among many related siblings.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states the return value (post id) and its use for further actions. It covers parameters, defaults, error conditions, and relationships to other tools. Everything an agent needs to correctly invoke send_post and understand its effects 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies markdown support, recommends the title (app shows as headline), and explains the default for oase_id. It also hints at the body's role in comments. This adds value, though the schema already covers the basics.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a post to an oase's feed/wall'), and explicitly distinguishes it from chat messages and the sibling send_message tool. It also clarifies the intended use case ('announcements and longer write-ups'), leaving 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including 'use send_message for chat' and instructions for commenting on a post via send_message with thread_id. It also explains the default oase behavior when oase_id is omitted, and even mentions the error condition 'posting_restricted' with its cause, covering both usage and exclusions.

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