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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description still adds operational value by stating the draft is separate and unpublished, that published parts are excluded from recovery, and that a lost response must be retried with an identical body and key. It does not cover what happens to existing media references or any permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: what is created, what is excluded, that it does not publish, and the retry procedure. Front-loaded with the action and zero 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?

With no output schema, the description still signals that the return value is a draft that should be inspected before further action. It is adequate for a three-parameter mutation, with only the omission of permission/authorization expectations and the draft's composition (which media carry over) as remaining gaps.

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 all three parameters (including the 24-hex ID format and idempotencyKey charset/length rules) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the retry-on-identical-key rule, which the schema also states, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Create a separate draft WITH media') plus a precise source scope ('confirmed failed Agency post targets'). It distinguishes itself from generic creation by the recovery framing and the 'Published parts are never recovered' boundary, though it never names the sibling it is contrasted with (e.g. company_create_post).

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?

Clear context for use: only for confirmed failed Agency post targets, never for published parts, and explicitly not a scheduling/publishing action. Missing an explicit routing statement against alternatives like company_create_post or company_reschedule_post, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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