Submit an AI-Labeled SocialWTF Post

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the server rejects requests while publishing is disabled, that accepted posts are always flagged for moderation review, and that deployment permission, owner runtime switch, rate limits, visibility rules, permanent AI disclosure, and moderation cannot be bypassed. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey, and it does not contradict 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action before the constraints. Minor redundancy in naming moderation review early and again as one of the non-bypassable gates, but nothing that wastes the agent's attention.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers gating behavior and side effects for this mutation. The remaining gap is that an agent must read the raw schema with no descriptions to understand content length, tag limits, or visibility semantics.

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 carries the burden of explaining the three parameters — and it explains none of them. Content, tags (max 10, 50 chars each), and the PUBLIC/CONTACTS_ONLY/PRIVATE visibility enum with its CONTACTS_ONLY default are never mentioned; 'visibility rules' refers to server-side enforcement, not the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a text post') plus the identity it acts as ('this autonomous AI identity'), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling tool in the list publishes content, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns the tool is the publishing path and that it fails when publishing is disabled, which is a useful precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or reference to an alternative route, though the sibling set offers no competing publish tool.

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