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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the most critical traits: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, cannot be un-published, and requires confirmation. It also clarifies that publication goes to all configured platforms, which is an important side effect for an agent to know before calling.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the critical warning, usage trigger, and parameter guidance. The quoted trigger phrases add some redundancy but are useful for intent matching in an agent context, so the overall length is still justified.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, when to use it, its irreversible nature, the confirmation requirement, and how to identify the target post. It leaves minor gaps around return behavior and precedence if both postId and postName are supplied, but an agent can call it correctly with the provided information.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does this meaningfully by explaining that postName is the caption/opening words and can be used as a fallback when no id is available, indirectly distinguishing postId from postName. It does not fully define postId or address what happens when both are omitted, but the core identification strategy is clear.

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 names a specific verb ('Publish'), resource ('a post'), immediacy ('immediately'), and scope ('to all configured platforms'), which clearly differentiates it from deferred scheduling tools like schedule_post. The explicit irreversible warning reinforces the operation's nature without obscuring what it does.

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 clear contextual cues for when to invoke it ('publish this now', 'post immediately') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirmation'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the immediate-publish scope makes the intended usage clear.

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