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

Annotations already flag mutating, destructive, and open-world behavior, but the description adds crucial workflow details: public exposure ('Goes live publicly'), preview-then-confirm behavior, the Autopilot ON prerequisite for scheduling, and that a successful publish returns the URL.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then layers in destination, timing, public visibility, and the confirm workflow. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with open-world and destructive annotations, the description covers the unique risks and workflow: public go-live, preview requirement, explicit confirmation, scheduling prerequisite, and return value. With no output schema, mentioning the returned URL is sufficient and nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including confirm, platform, publish_at, article_id, and brand. The description reinforces the confirm workflow and mentions Autopilot ON for scheduling, but adds little syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a written article') and names the source ('a draft from draft_article'), clearly distinguishing it from drafting or managing articles. Lists destinations and scope (now or scheduled), so an agent can identify the action without opening 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?

Provides clear context: publish now or schedule (requires Autopilot ON), preview first, and set confirm: true only after approval. It implies the relationship to draft_article but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_article or refresh_article.

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