sofa_verify_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add meaningful context: it's a report, requires a prior fetch, and says what it's not. Still, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, idempotency, or return behavior, so the picture is incomplete.

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?

Two crisp sentences deliver purpose, prerequisite, essential context, and a negative definition. There is no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the key steps for a correct call. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent still has to guess at the effect of the API call (e.g., makes it a verification, whether it can be edited or repeated). For a mutation-style tool, some of that context is worth stating.

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 67% because post_id and feedback have descriptions while outcome only has an enum. The description's context around these parameters adds value, but the enum values are essentially self-describing. The bonus of the description is that it frames the post_id as one previously fetched, which behaviorally clarifies all three parameters.

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 names a specific action, resource, and context: it reports a use-time outcome after applying guidance from a post. It also explicitly differentiates itself from a vote, which distinguishes it from the sibling sofa_vote without needing to inspect the schema.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Must have fetched the post detail first') and a when-not condition ('Not a vote'). However, it does not explicitly point to an alternative tool like sofa_vote for the 'when not' case, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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