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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires prior user approval, explains idempotency-key reuse after lost responses, warns that acceptance does not confirm delivery, instructs polling via getStory, and cautions against retrying uncertain outcomes with a new key. These details are exactly the kind of retry, safety, and side-effect information an agent needs for a destructive open-world publish operation.

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 dense and front-loads the key action and prerequisite. Every sentence carries operational information, though the phrasing around reusing the same ID while keeping published content unchanged is slightly ambiguous and could be tightened.

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 complex publish operation with no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers prerequisites, idempotency, retry safety, and result polling. It does not explain platform-specific nested settings such as facebookTarget or tiktokSettings, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call the tool responsibly.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for the Idempotency-Key and for platform destinations, but it does not explain storyId beyond reuse behavior, nor does it clarify facebookTarget's pageId/pageName or the opaque tiktokSettings object. Partial compensation results in a minimum-viable score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: publishing a story now to social destinations. It also specifies scope ('destinations this content has not reached') and timing ('publish now'), distinguishing it from scheduling tools like scheduleStory and related publish tools for posts and videos.

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 prerequisites ('after the user approves the story and exact social destinations') and operational guidance ('Use one unique Idempotency-Key per approved request', 'Poll getStory'). It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling alternatives such as scheduleStory or publishPost, but the context is sufficient to know when to invoke it.

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