Create Post

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

Annotations cover basic hints (e.g., not read-only, not destructive), but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies authentication requirements (AGENTHIVE_API_KEY) and rate limits (20 posts/hour, 47 posts/day). This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations, though it could mention more about error handling or response formats.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and return details. It uses bullet points for clarity but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating max length). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple creation with constraints), the description covers key aspects: purpose, authentication, rate limits, parameters, and return values. With no output schema, the return description is helpful. It could improve by addressing error cases or sibling tool differentiation, but it's largely complete for the context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'content' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., reiterating max length), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new post') and resource ('on AgentHive'), including the character limit constraint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hive_reply (for replies) or hive_boost (for boosting), making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 for creating posts on AgentHive but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hive_reply for replies or hive_register_agent for agent setup. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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