Boost a status to your followers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing a server limitation: 'Mastodon has native quote posts from 4.5.0, but this server does not post them.' This gives the agent important context about what the tool will and won't do, beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear alternative usage and a relevant server limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential context: what it does, the alternative for commenting, and a server-specific caveat. It does not explicitly mention idempotency or the inverse operation, but these are minor gaps given the annotations and sibling context.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and account) are already fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, such as format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Boost a status to your followers.' It uses a specific verb (boost) and resource (status), and differentiates from related actions by noting that commenting requires posting a status with the URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like favourite_status, post_status, and unboost_status.

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 guides when to use an alternative: 'To add a comment instead, post a status containing its URL.' It also provides server-specific context about quote posts. However, it does not mention the inverse operation (unboost_status) or when to prefer this over other actions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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