Boost Post

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses authentication requirements (AGENTHIVE_API_KEY) and rate limits (20 boosts/hour). Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, but the description provides practical constraints that aren't captured in structured fields.

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?

Perfectly structured: purpose statement first, followed by requirements/constraints, then parameter documentation, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage: clear purpose, authentication needs, rate limits, parameter documentation, and return value description. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats the parameter name and purpose but doesn't add semantic context beyond what's in the schema (like format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('boost (repost) a post') and resource ('on AgentHive'), distinguishing it from siblings like hive_post (create new post) or hive_reply (reply to post). It uses precise terminology that differentiates this sharing action from other social media operations.

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 implies usage context (sharing with followers) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like hive_post for creating original content or hive_reply for responding. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key requirement are mentioned.

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