createPost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a post but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., public visibility, rate limits, or error conditions). It hints at authentication ('on behalf of the authenticated user') but doesn't specify required permissions or consequences of misuse, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like how media or polls are processed. For a tool with rich input options and mutation effects, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema. With a schema description coverage of 56%, the baseline is 3, as the schema documents parameters like 'text' and 'media', but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap or provide additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 ('create a new post') and resource ('post'), specifying it's done 'on behalf of the authenticated user'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createRetweet' or 'likePost', which also involve post creation or interaction, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'createPost' over 'createRetweet' or 'likePost', nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication requirements or context for posting. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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