bernstein_post_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'Host effects: makes network requests,' which is marginal because 'post' already implies a network request. It does not disclose versioning behavior, task state changes, idempotency, or failure semantics.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, the 'Host effects' sentence is boilerplate and adds little information, preventing a top score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, conditional requirements, and four artifact_type variants, yet the description provides almost none of that context. Even though an output schema exists and return-value documentation is not required, the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave the description incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 15 parameters, but it explains none of them. It does not clarify artifact_type variants, required conditional fields, link_kind values, or the meaning of key, poster, target, or invocation_argv_hash.

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 and resource: 'Post a versioned artifact to a task on the Bernstein server.' This is a specific verb plus resource and is distinguishable from siblings like bernstein_post_message by the artifact focus, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling or mention the artifact_type variants.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus bernstein_post_message or other artifact-related operations. The phrase 'versioned artifact' implies a niche, but no context, exclusions, or alternative tool referrals are provided.

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