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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the confirmation requirement, the exact environment where the requirement can be waived and that failure follows elsewhere, the side effect on scheduled posts, and the brand-voice gate plus its bypass. That is unusually rich mutation and failure-mode context.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the conditional confirmation rules. The date-versioned elicitation clause is dense but necessary and no sentence is wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation risks (confirmation, schedule clearing, brand-voice gate). The remaining gap is the unexplained domain and site_id parameters and the lack of any statement about the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm and override_brand_voice in behavioral terms and implies id from the tool name, but says nothing about domain or site_id, leaving two of five parameters with no meaning beyond their names.

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 resource: 'Publish a draft blog post, making it live on the site.' An agent can distinguish this from post_posts (create) and post_posts_by_id_schedule. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions: confirm: true is required, omitting it only works on a 2026-07-28 connection with form elicitation, and published-scheduled posts are published immediately with the schedule cleared. It does not point to sibling tools (e.g. schedule vs. publish) as alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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