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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations, it discloses the real risk (a PENDING post with a past or imminent scheduledAt goes live publicly), the reviewer routing behavior, and the "Publish" permission requirement. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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, then the status semantics, then the public-publish warning, then sibling disambiguation and permissions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with a nested attachment object and no output schema, the description covers the risky paths, permission gate, and tool boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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, and the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between status and scheduledAt and the reviewer semantics of REQUIRE_APPROVAL. It leaves the remaining enum values (PUBLISHED, APPROVED, REJECTED) and postId-for-update undocumented in prose, so not a full 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 ("Draft or schedule a LinkedIn post") and immediately clarifies that this is the only tool that persists a post, explicitly contrasting post_generate and post_schedule_set. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly maps each status value to a use case (DRAFTED = private, PENDING + scheduledAt = queued, REQUIRE_APPROVAL = reviewer) and names two alternatives with the reason they are not substitutes. Also states the precondition of confirming copy before an imminent PENDING publish.

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