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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the full pipeline: payment gate, monthly AI-story cap, publish lease preventing double-posts, and retry with backoff. It also flags refused scheduled drafts. This gives the agent a solid understanding of side effects and constraints.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and immediately follow with prerequisites. Every clause carries relevant information—null, no filler. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, and pipeline behavior, which is sufficient for a tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema. It doesn't describe the success response, but that is not typically required when no output schema is present. It is slightly less complete than a perfect definition because it could mention what happens on success, but the overall context is strong.

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?

With schema coverage at 67%, the description adds important semantics to draft_id by requiring it to be an approved draft and forbidding scheduled drafts. The schema already describes handle and context, so the description's incremental value is concentrated on draft_id, which elevates it above a pure baseline but not to full coverage for all parameters.

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 ('Publish'), a specific resource ('draft to Instagram'), and a clear scope ('ONE approved or edited draft right now'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the draft pipeline and prerequisites, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'use update_draft first' for approval, and 'a scheduled draft is refused (the scheduler owns it, unschedule first)' as a clear exclusion. This is precise when-to-use guidance.

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