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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and the description adds real value on top: it clarifies that the tool never submits or publishes, that locked posts fail with a clear error, and that the channel cannot be changed during an edit. It stops short of detailing permissions or how repeated creates behave, but the mutation scope and error behavior are well covered.

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?

Front-loads the create/edit distinction and follows with prerequisites and routing in compact sentences. The trailing 'Related:' list is slightly listy but earns its place by naming the relevant siblings.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers mode selection, prerequisites, and follow-up actions; only edge behavior like partial-failure or concurrency handling is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents create-vs-edit semantics for postId, the channel immutability rule, and null-to-clear for angleId/pillarId. The description largely restates the create/edit rule rather than adding new parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (save/creates a draft or edits one) and distinguishes the two modes via the postId condition. It also explicitly names what it is not ('Never submits or publishes'), separating it from siblings like submit_post and approve_posts.

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 when-to-use rules: omit postId to create (channel required), pass postId to edit a draft or changes-requested post. It names the prerequisite (get_channel_rules first) and the follow-up alternative (submit_post to send for review), leaving little to inference.

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