haops_post_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that markdown will be converted to HTML server-side, adding a behavioral detail. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or success/failure behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose, second gives a practical recommendation. It is front-loaded with essential information.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the key markdown conversion aspect but doesn't detail the parentMessageId (threaded replies) or verbose parameter explicitly. The schema provides full coverage, so the description is largely sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly recommending markdown for agent messages and noting server-side conversion, which enhances understanding of the content and contentType parameters. It also mentions @mentions, which is present in the schema but reinforces the semantic.

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 tool posts a message to a discussion thread in HAOps, with a specific verb ("Post") and resource ("message to a discussion thread"). It distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_send_dm (direct message) and haops_create_discussion (creating threads).

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 recommends using markdown for agent messages and notes server-side conversion, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like haops_edit_message or haops_delete_message.

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