prepare_chat_post

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not submit the post and requires user authorization. However, it doesn't disclose whether a draft or pending post is stored, how authorization is expected to be provided, or what side effects occur before the final submission. With readOnlyHint=false, more detail about the mutation profile would be valuable.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the most important fact—that this tool prepares but does not submit—is front-loaded. The minor grammatical issue ('Require' instead of 'Requires') does not meaningfully harm clarity.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the workflow, but it omits what happens after preparation, how authorization works, and what the tool returns. Given the related sibling tools claim_chat_post, post_league_chat, and get_chat_post_status, an agent lacks enough information to sequence this correctly.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance for league_id, text, or request_id. While text and league_id are somewhat self-explanatory, request_id is highly ambiguous and not explained anywhere. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare an exact browser-assisted post.' The clarifying sentence 'This tool does not submit it' explicitly differentiates it from the submission step, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like post_league_chat. It doesn't fully explain what 'prepare' entails, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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?

'This tool does not submit it' clearly signals that this is a staging step rather than the final send action, and 'Require user authorization' states a precondition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as post_league_chat or claim_chat_post, but the negation gives strong contextual guidance about when to use it.

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