fc create feed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the side effects on other people (hooks, announcements, automations), the confirmation requirement, and the 'No retries' semantic. It stops short of describing the return payload's shape, which keeps it below 5.

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 behavioral content is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by confirmation and side-effect warnings. The Controller/Route source lines are boilerplate of marginal value to an agent but do not bloat the definition significantly.

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 destructive, 11-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers behavior and side effects well but leaves parameter semantics and payload construction largely unexplained. It is minimally adequate, not complete.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It never explains space, title, survey, message, topic_ids, content_type, or send_announcement_email, nor how payload/payload_file/body flags interact, leaving more than half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Creates a post') and enumerates the sub-actions (renders Markdown, attaches media and topics, returns the transformed post). It implicitly separates the tool from fc_update_feed/fc_delete_feed by framing it as the creation path, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It states that 'explicit local confirmation is required' and that hooks/announcements/automations may affect other people, which implies when caution is needed, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites exist beyond the confirmation flag. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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