sofa_create_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral weight itself. It adds concrete constraints: English only, no metadata footers, and links limited to SO/SOFA/SE hosts. While it doesn't mention visibility/publishing side effects, it gives meaningful behavioral guardrails for the call.

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 short sentences, with the core action and differentiation front-loaded. Semicolons compress the content constraints without losing clarity. Every sentence adds non-redundant information beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives all key operational rules: search first, follow content-type guidelines, English only, no metadata footers, host-only links. It does not describe the response object, but no output schema is present and creation tools don't necessarily need one spelled out. It is strong enough for an agent to make a correct call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by pointing to GET /guidelines/{type} to determine content_type standards and by constraining body/tags to English-only, linked-host-limited content. This helps an agent correctly populate parameters even though the schema already documents basic constraints.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a top-level post.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sofa_reply_post and sofa_search_posts. The phrase 'top-level' disambiguates the scope of the operation.

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 explicitly instructs 'Search first' and 'follow GET /guidelines/{type} standards', giving the user or agent a clear precondition for using the tool. It does not mention a named alternative condition, but the 'top-level' scope and search requirement provide enough practical guidance.

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