Post to Bluesky

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is disclosed structurally. The description adds the crucial behavioral consequence — 'Public the moment it runs' — and pairs it with the confirm:true gate. That is genuinely informative context beyond the annotations; the connection between necessity and the confirmation requirement is exactly the kind of practical guidance an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences with no padding. The opening states the verb and payload types, then the behavioral scope, then the size constraint, then the confirmation requirement. Every part earns its place and the most decision-relevant detail (the length boundary) is front-loaded.

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 13 parameters, four nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description is adequately comprehensive. It establishes the input types, the length limit, the auto-linking behavior, the confirmation gate, and the length-based sibling. It doesn't describe what happens after posting or the response shape, which would be useful given that no output schema exists, but the safety-critical details are all present.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by noting that URLs, hashtags, and mentions in the text are auto-linked — 'You do not need to format them' — which helps the agent choose between providing formatting and relying on the tool. It also repeats the 300-char constraint already present in the schema. Given the schema carries most of the semantic load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Publish a post' — and lists the payload forms (text, images, video, link card, quote, replies). It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_thread by citing the 300-character boundary. An agent can tell this tool apart from create_list and the other publishing siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly says when to route elsewhere: 'for anything longer use create_thread'. It also states that the required confirm flag must be true and includes the precondition that the account defaults to the first connected account. This is concrete, actionable guidance that selects between alternatives with minimal left to inference.

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