Repost

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

The description reinforces the idempotency hint with concrete language ('Reposting twice is harmless') and clarifies that adding a comment is out of scope for this tool, directing to create_post. Annotations already cover read-only/write and destructive status, so the description adds useful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences carry exactly the needed information: primary action, idempotency, and alternative. No wasted words, and the core purpose 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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, idempotency, and the main alternative. Minor absence of return-value details is acceptable given no output schema, and the core behavior is fully specified.

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%, and both uri and account have clear descriptions. The description does not add additional semantic meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Repost') and resource ('a post'), and specifies the audience ('to your followers'). It clearly distinguishes this from create_post by offering an explicit alternative for adding comments, so an agent can tell it apart without needing the schema.

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 states that reposting twice is harmless, indicating idempotent usage. It also directly instructs when to use create_post with 'quote' instead, providing a clear when-not and alternative condition.

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