x_community_post_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does supply meaningful traits: it is deterministic, performs a membership check, captures screenshots, handles composer recovery, and verifies the post in the feed. It still omits prerequisites (account must be switched in?), auth requirements, and failure behavior, but the disclosed flow is richer than a bare 'posts' statement.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing phases; there is no filler. The list of phases is slightly feature-catalog-flavored but each item earns its place by hinting at robustness behavior.

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 4-parameter composite tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the execution phases but leaves out key operational context: required preconditions (signed-in account, community membership state), what the screenshots/verification return, and how failure/recovery surfaces to the caller.

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 documents url, join (defaults true), text, and account. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what happens when join is false, or how account relates to the switcher), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Run') and resource ('community-post task') and enumerates the constituent phases (membership check, screenshots, composer recovery, feed verification), which signals a composite orchestration tool rather than an atomic action. This implicitly separates it from atomic siblings like x_open_community or x_create_post, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 describes what the task contains but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this composite task over chaining the atomic siblings (x_open_community + x_create_post + x_verify_text_visible). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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