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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Does not publish or schedule' and 'Reuse idempotencyKey on retry,' adding the actionable retry behavior rather than just restating the hint. It also discloses the pre-connection drafting mode, which annotations cannot convey, though it omits permission/auth requirements.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the primary action, then the alternate mode, then the key behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object, 0%-coverage tool the description does a fair job on intent and safety but is thin on parameter guidance, even though an output schema means return values need not be explained. It leaves the agent without enough detail to populate connectionId versus platform or the settings sub-object.

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% across 8 parameters including a large nested settings object, so the description carries the burden. It only hints at media IDs and idempotencyKey; brandId, content, connectionId, and the platform-specific settings keys remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Save a reviewable draft') and clarifies a second mode ('or supply platform to draft before connecting'), which is genuinely distinguishing context. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly names its closest sibling (update_draft) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides implied guidance via 'Does not publish or schedule' (steering away from schedule_post) and 'Use existing media IDs' (steering toward search_media/import_media first). However, it never names an alternative tool or gives an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-update_draft condition, so usage is only implied.

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