Create Promotion Task

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

Annotations declare it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'SPENDS points (price × actions_required, plan discount) and 1 daily slot' and 'Auto-detects platform from URL,' which goes beyond annotations to explain side effects.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It includes necessary details (costs, references, constraints) without superfluous text. Could be slightly tighter, but efficient overall.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers core purpose, costs, auto-detection, and minimums. It references get_api_reference for examples and errors, partially compensating for missing return info. Leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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 78%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining auto-detection of social_network_code when omitted and specific minimum points for GitHub/Product Hunt and meaningful COMMENT, which are not in the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Create a promotion task on Upvote.club,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_task and get_api_reference by focusing on creation and referencing costs (points, daily slot) and auto-detection.

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 implicitly guides usage by noting it spends points and a daily slot, and suggests calling get_api_reference for examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of constraints provides adequate guidance.

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