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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important asynchronous behavior: it returns while publishing unless wait: true is passed. It also surfaces a precondition for drafts and an error case for already-published posts, which are genuinely useful behavioral details not visible in annotations.

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, each earning its place: the main action, the async behavior with wait option, and the draft/already-sent edge cases. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 destructive, async tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, waiting behavior, a prerequisite, and an error condition. It is nearly complete, though it relies on the reader knowing publish's semantics and does not describe the response shape beyond holding for the result.

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 schema already explains id, wait, and workspaceId well. The description reinforces the wait behavior and draft requirement but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send a scheduled or draft post now, rather than waiting. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing the immediacy and the scheduled/draft scope, and references publish as a behavioral comparison.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to send a scheduled or draft post immediately. It also provides a prerequisite (a draft needs at least one target account) and an exclusion (posts that already went out return post_not_editable), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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