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

The annotations already declare this a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond them: finishing releases the editing presence so other people opening the post no longer see you writing it. However, it never addresses the question an agent most needs answered for a mutation that ends an editing session — whether unsaved changes are discarded, committed, or unaffected.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the condition-to-call outranks the explanatory detail, which is the right ordering. It loses a point because the opening fragment is syntactically broken and puts a parameter reference ahead of the tool's purpose, which is the opposite of front-loading.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema state-transition tool, the definition covers the essential trigger and the observable effect on other users. It is not complete enough for confident standalone use, though: the absence of any statement about unsaved edits, lock expiry, or error behavior if no editing session is active leaves real ambiguity in the one area this tool affects.

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%: site is documented as "the site to work on, as list_sites names it" and post_id as "the post's id from list_posts". The description restates the site parameter without adding format, default, or cross-parameter constraints. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific state-transition operation and ties it to the sibling that opens that state (start_editing_post), so an agent can place it precisely among the editing tools. It is weaker on the front end: the first sentence ("On one site of the account, named in site") is a fragment that reads like a schema note rather than a statement of purpose, and the actual purpose only lands in the second sentence.

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 trigger condition is explicit: call this when done with a post you started with start_editing_post. That is a clear when-to-use rule anchored to a named sibling, which is better than most. What is absent is the negative case and the alternatives path: nothing says what to call instead if the edit should be abandoned rather than finished, or whether edit_post/publish_post implicitly ends the session.

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