repost_story

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Repost'. Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the original story. It simply restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler words, making it appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and resource. The version suffix '(v9.3)' is minor and not detrimental. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could add more detail without losing conciseness.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to obtain story_sender_chat_id or story_id, whether the bot requires special permissions in the destination chat, or whether the repost is a copy or a reference. The annotations help somewhat, but the description alone does not provide enough context for reliable invocation across scenarios.

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?

The input schema only describes chat_id ('Chat ID or @username'), leaving story_id and story_sender_chat_id undocumented. With schema coverage at 33%, the description must compensate but only vaguely implies the roles ('to another chat' hints at chat_id). It fails to clarify how story_sender_chat_id and story_id relate to the source story, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 action with a specific verb ('Repost'), resource ('a story'), and target ('another chat'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like post_story by referencing an existing story, but it does not explicitly call out alternatives like forward_message or copy_message, so it falls short of a perfect purpose score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forward_message, copy_message, or post_story. It mentions no prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where reposting is the preferred choice, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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