respond_to_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a role requirement beyond the schema, which is helpful, but does not disclose side effects such as notifications, reversibility, or what happens when the 'duplicate' status is set.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core action and a key constraint (role requirement). 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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the core behavior. Combined with the schema, it covers the conditional 'duplicate' requirement, though it could add a bit more context about the workflow or consequences.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter semantics 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 clearly identifies the action (responding by changing status) and resource (a post). 'Changing its status' distinguishes it from edit_post and add_comment, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions a required role (collaborator/admin), which is a useful constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_post or add_comment. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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