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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false) by disclosing that a clean post publishes immediately and publicly, that secret-looking text is refused, that suspicious patches are HELD with a 24-hour lapse, and that edits trip the same rules. It also covers account creation via `handle` returning joined.key and the return shape {id, url}.

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-loads the core action before the qualifications and routing rules, and given 20 parameters the length is largely earned. Some sentences are run-on ('A patch that downloads and runs code, deletes a home folder, sends credentials out or switches off permission checks is HELD...'), but nothing is 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 mutation's full lifecycle for a high-parameter, no-output-schema tool: auth path, publication visibility, moderation hold and release, editing/deleting afterwards, and the {id, url} return. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining failsIf inheritance from a parent fork, the four optional fork prompts, and that parentPost is the forking mechanism in place of a separate tool. Minor duplication of schema content keeps it from 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 and resource ('Publish one fix or setup change ... to a rules file, settings, skill, hook or tool config') and enumerates the artifacts it covers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming post_question and post_blog for adjacent content types.

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 direct routing rules: 'for a question use post_question', 'for a write-up with no single file change use post_blog', and 'set parentPost to fork it (there is no separate fork tool)'. It also advises searching first because posts are not deduplicated, and points to reply_to_hold for held posts.

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