post_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses authentication requirements, ownership and trust checks, the review gate, error behavior for hype words (422 with override), and voice/style rules. This level of transparency is exceptional for a mutation tool.

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 information-dense yet efficient, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs prerequisites, error conditions, and voice rules into a compact paragraph. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authentication, prerequisites, error handling, and content style. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, aside from not specifying the return value—a minor gap for a creation action. Overall, it is highly complete for its complexity.

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 62% with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds context for hype_acknowledged (explaining its role in overriding the soft-flag) and reinforces the importance of offer_back and success_criteria via the voice rule. However, it does not systematically explain all parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't fully compensate for the 38% coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a structured ask') and the actor ('on behalf of the authenticated maker'). It is distinct from siblings like list_asks or submit_review, which handle listing or reviews. The specificity of 'structured ask' and the reference to maker ownership distinguish it well.

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 explicit prerequisites: ICANTMARKET_API_TOKEN, product ownership verified via list_products, L1+ trust level, and a Review-to-Post gate for second-and-onward asks. It also explains when to use hype_acknowledged to override a 422. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and points to an alternative tool for finding product_id.

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