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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that items fill failed Autopilot slots later and always go through review. Crucially, it states that adding never publishes anything, which prevents misconceptions about immediate posting. This goes beyond a simple 'add' description and provides meaningful behavioral 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 sentences deliver purpose, usage triggers, and a key behavioral caveat without any fluff. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and critical behavior, which is good for a relatively simple two-parameter tool. However, it omits any explanation of the sourcePostId parameter and does not describe return behavior, which might matter given no output schema. The missing parameter context keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the text parameter via 'caption text' and gives no information about sourcePostId. An agent calling this tool would not know what sourcePostId refers to or how it relates to the destination. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema-level documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a recyclable post (caption text) to the user's evergreen queue.' The verb-add plus the evergreen-queue resource makes it distinct from sibling tools like schedule_post or publish. It also clarifies scope with the phrase 'never publishes anything.'

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?

The description provides explicit usage triggers: 'Use for "save this as evergreen" / "recycle this post".' It implies when not to use it (when immediate publishing is intended) by stating that adding never publishes. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over publication-focused siblings.

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