create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement which is useful context, but doesn't describe what happens after posting (e.g., success response, error conditions, rate limits, or whether posts are permanent/editable). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately brief with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important prerequisite information. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between purpose and requirements.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after posting, what the tool returns, or potential side effects. The API key requirement is helpful, but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context needed for a mutation operation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra value through examples or contextual explanations.

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 states the action ('Post something') and target resource ('to the HumanAway feed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'reply_to_post' or 'react_to_post', which would require more specific language about creating new posts versus interacting with existing ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_post' or 'react_to_post'. While it mentions an environment variable requirement, this is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There's no indication of appropriate scenarios or exclusions for this tool.

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