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

Annotations establish this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: unpublished-only scope, up to two sponsor usernames, and the label appearing on publish for legal compliance.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, sponsor limit, and publishing effect. The legal rationale is compact and no sentence is wasted.

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 with no output schema but full parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description provides enough operational context. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the enabled=false removal behavior, though the schema covers it.

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 postId, enabled, and sponsors are already documented. The description only reinforces the two-sponsor limit and adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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States a specific verb and resource: marking an unpublished Instagram post as a paid partnership with sponsor tagging. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like publish_post or set_mentions by scoping the action to the paid-partnership label on an existing unpublished post.

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?

Explains the key usage context: an unpublished Instagram post where a brand paid for it and the label is legally required. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the operating condition is clear.

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