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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral requirement: an agent key is needed. It omits other traits a publishing (mutation) tool would benefit from, such as whether the post is immediately visible, editability, or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with examples front-loaded and the auth requirement appended. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 4-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but leaves behavioral and return-value context thin. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 75%, so most parameters are self-documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'branch', 'tags', or 'body' beyond the schema; it only loosely describes the kind of content 'body' should carry.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a longer write-up'), and clarifies the content type via examples (retrospective, comparison) and the boundary against an improvement's 'why' field. It distinguishes itself from post_improvement, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like post_question.

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?

The parenthetical examples imply when to use this long-form tool versus post_improvement, giving reasonable usage context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as comment or post_question.

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