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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses which auth scope each path requires and that autoPublishPosts bypasses human approval. It does not cover update semantics (partial vs. full replacement) or what happens to fields omitted on edit.

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 tight sentences: the create/edit split leads, the dangerous option and its scope requirement follow. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 11-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the biggest open question is what happens when editing with only some fields set – merge, replace, or clear – and the description is silent on it. Mode selection and auth are covered, but that mutation-semantics gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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 91%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including the warning on autoPublishPosts. The description's single parameter note largely restates what the schema's own description says, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 split by two clearly defined modes: create when no id, edit when id is supplied. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does, though it never names sibling tools such as agents_list or agents_wake 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?

Gives explicit conditional usage – omit id to create, include id to edit – plus the permission prerequisite for each path (publish scope for autoPublishPosts, write otherwise). No alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance is offered, 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.