ads_mastodon_public_mention

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that the output is public, that it is a single-recipient action, and that a confirm gate exists. It omits consequences the agent needs for a public write: required auth/scopes, irreversibility, rate limits, and failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the confirm gate stated before the optional reply detail. No filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the whole burden, and it never explains the result of the call or how account_id relates to target_account_id. Adequate to avoid a wrong call, not enough for a public, likely irreversible write.

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 60% and the description reinforces confirm, target account selection, and optional reply-to. It says nothing about account_id, the acting account, which is undocumented in both schema and description, so the gap on a required parameter remains.

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?

States a specific verb (publish), resource (public Mastodon mention), and scope (one message to one selected account), plus the 'no bulk messaging' boundary. It implicitly separates itself from bulk/batch siblings like ads_mastodon_message_batch, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives two usable conditions: confirm=true must be explicit, and bulk messaging is out of scope. It does not say when to use this versus ads_mastodon_reply, ads_mastodon_thread_create, or ads_mastodon_message_batch, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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