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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: this only produces a draft, media must be publicly reachable because platforms pull the URL at publish time, and user approval must precede scheduling. It does not address the non-idempotent behavior (e.g., whether repeated calls create duplicate drafts), which is the one notable gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint; each sentence either routes to a sibling tool or sets an approval expectation. No filler.

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?

Covers the draft-vs-publish distinction, prerequisites, and the approval workflow for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema. It never mentions what the draft call returns (e.g., a draft/story identifier the agent would need for subsequent publish), which is the only missing link for a multi-step flow.

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 88%, so the schema already documents mediaUrl, mediaFit, duration, platforms, storyType, and thumbnailUrl thoroughly. The description's only parameter-relevant addition is reinforcing that mediaUrl must be publicly accessible, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Create a story draft') plus a key constraint ('from a media URL that is already publicly accessible'), immediately distinguishing it from createUploadLink (local files) and publishStory/scheduleStory (publishing). An agent can place it correctly in the workflow 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?

Gives explicit routing for both branches: call createUploadLink first when the media is a local file, and call publishStory after approval when publishing immediately. It also states the required approval step for destination and timing, so when/when-not are both covered.

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