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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: which fields are copied (caption, per-platform captions, first comments, YouTube title/description override), that notes are NOT copied, the media resolution precedence, and the resulting board state transitions (Draft → Scheduled → Published). That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before a write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and no filler sentences; every clause carries operational detail. It is a dense single paragraph, though, and the media-selection chain plus the lifecycle sentence could be split for faster scanning.

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 source resolution, copy semantics, media fallback, linking, and lifecycle consequences, with no output schema needed to infer results. For a 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining precedence ("Overrides the concept's attachment and linked upload") and the conditional reason to pass attachment_id ("if it has several"). idempotency_key semantics are left entirely to the schema, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Turns a concept into draft posts") anchored to a concrete UI affordance ("like 'Create draft' on the Concepts board"). This clearly separates it from plain create_post_draft / create_post_drafts, which presumably don't take a concept as the source.

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 downstream routing ("Then use batch_update_posts for platform settings and batch_schedule_posts to schedule") and a media-selection decision tree (video_upload_id > linked upload > attachment). It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling single-draft tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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