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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: text never changes, photos without media references get auto-placed, and layout transformation follows the selected preset. It also clarifies that the server never makes the form decision, which is important non-obvious behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds operational detail rather than filler. However, it is a single long paragraph with several intertwined workflow branches, so it could be tightened or broken into shorter sentences for easier scanning.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call flow: what to pass, what to expect (layout vs layouts[]), how to use the result with publish, and how to bypass the transform with 'as-is.' It also handles the multi-account workspaceId edge case, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional lookups.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds operational context by linking content and mediaIds to the eventual publish call and clarifying when workspaceId is needed ('only when the account has more than one'). It also explains the relationship between form and forms, though most parameter details are already present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Naver Blog only' and 'Shows how publish will lay the body out before anything goes out,' naming a specific verb, resource, and platform scope. It distinguishes itself from publish by explaining that it is a preview that does not send content.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: call with the same content and mediaIds before publishing, show the result, then either publish with the same layout or pass layout 'as-is' to bypass reshaping. It also explains when to use forms: 'all' to let the person choose, and it states the server never picks, leaving the decision to the agent.

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