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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is live, public, irreversible distribution on the customer's channel and that user confirmation is mandatory. It also adds the permission prerequisite, which is critical behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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 deliver the action, the consequence, and the safety requirement without any wasted words. The most important behavioral warning ('always confirm with the user') is placed prominently.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations already covering read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness, the description adds the essential human-confirmation and permission context. The only notable gap is undocumented platform semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It implies run_id refers to a finished run's identifier via 'a finished run's assets', but it says nothing about the platform parameter or its possible values beyond the schema default of 'x'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Post') and a precise resource ('a finished run's assets to the workspace's CONNECTED SOCIAL ACCOUNT'). It clearly distinguishes this from scheduling by calling out 'live, public distribution on the customer's channel.'

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 clear usage context: this is for finished runs only, requires a grant authorized with posting allowed, and mandates user confirmation before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives like schedule_post, but the live-distribution framing makes the intended situation clear.

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