ads_mastodon_thread_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: posts are chained as replies, order is preserved, and pinning applies only to the root. It omits important mutation traits such as what happens on partial failure mid-thread, rate-limit behavior between posts, and which account is targeted.

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 tight sentences that lead with the action and the confirmation gate, then the threading and pinning constraints. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 six-parameter, multi-post, irreversible publish with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers sequencing and pinning but not failure/partial-publish behavior or how account_id selects the publishing identity. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to call it safely.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents posts, confirm, delay_ms, pin_root, and visibility. The description only marginally adds meaning by clarifying that posts are used verbatim ('explicitly provided') and that pinning is root-only; account_id remains unexplained in both places.

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 and resource ('Publish ... Mastodon thread') plus a procedural qualifier ('in order after confirm=true'), which separates it from single-post siblings like ads_mastodon_reply or ads_mastodon_message_batch. It never names an alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 confirm=true gate is stated as a hard precondition, which is real usage guidance for a publish action. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not comparison against ads_mastodon_message_batch, ads_mastodon_reply, or ads_mastodon_status, so choosing between them 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.