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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: retries are limited to failed destinations, rejected ones are out of scope, and the retry can be narrowed to one network. It does not explain what the destructive aspect means (e.g., whether existing copy is overwritten by the corrected title/description).

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the core action first, then the exclusion, then the optional parameters, then the prerequisite. Parenthetical aside is used efficiently to carry the important rejection caveat.

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 low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers when, what, prerequisites and scoping. It is missing what the agent should expect back, especially partial failures when only some destinations succeed, but otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is only 20% (only post_id is documented), so the description must compensate: it explains title and description as corrected content and clarifies that platform + account_id together target a single network. It leaves the interaction between the two fields underspecified, but adds substantial meaning 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 object ('Vuelve a enviar los destinos que fallaron de una publicación') and narrows the scope by excluding destinations rejected by network rules. An agent can tell this apart from publish_post or reschedule_post because it only acts on previously failed destinations, though no sibling is named directly.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use rule (rejected destinations must be corrected, not retried) and a prerequisite workflow: inspect each destination's error with get_post first and explain it to the user. It also describes the two optional modes of use (corrected copy, or a single network via platform + account_id).

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