moltbook_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it mentions privacy filtering before submission, automatic handling of verification challenges, and logging to an engagement log. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with a clear opening sentence, followed by behavioral notes, and then organized sections for Args and Returns. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the behavioral notes could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than listed as bullet-like points.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral aspects and parameter semantics but lacks details on error responses, authentication needs, or return data structure beyond a vague mention. For a tool with no structured support, it should provide more comprehensive guidance on outputs and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: explains what 'submolt' is with examples, specifies character limits for 'title' and 'content', defines 'post_type' options and default, and clarifies 'url' usage conditional on 'post_type'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail validation rules more explicitly.

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's purpose: 'Create a new post on Moltbook.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('post'), and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_post, get_post, or upvote_post by focusing on creation rather than modification, retrieval, or interaction.

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 Moltbook but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions sibling tools like moltbook_create_comment, but no guidance is provided on choosing between creating a post versus a comment or other actions. Usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly defined.

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