Clap for a post

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 50-clap per-reader limit and that the tool 'refuses to go past that.' This helps set expectations for side effects and edge cases without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the key behavioral constraint (50 claps) is stated succinctly, and the alternative tool is mentioned in one short phrase. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, a behavioral limitation, and the reverse operation. It doesn't discuss error cases or authentication, but annotations and the schema already provide the safety profile and parameter constraints. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 50% (only 'post' is described in the schema), so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'count' parameter. It mentions the 50-clap ceiling, which relates to count's maximum, but it doesn't explicitly state that 'count' is the number of claps to give. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 ('Clap for a post') and the resource (a post), plus a notable consequence (visible to its author). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling undo_clap, making the tool's purpose and scope immediately unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit activation condition ('Only use when the user asks') and names the alternative for reversing the action ('undo_clap takes them back'). This is direct, practical guidance that tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus the sibling.

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