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

The annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: payment gate, monthly story cap, publish lease preventing double-posts against the cron, retry with backoff, and refusal of scheduled drafts. This goes well beyond the binary annotation signals and prepares the agent for failures and concurrency 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The key constraint appears early, and the pipeline details are compressed into one effective phrase. Every clause contributes decision-relevant information.

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 purpose, prerequisites, exclusions, concurrency protection, and retry behavior. It does not explain return values or what happens on payment/cap failure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Still, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and prepare inputs.

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?

The schema already documents handle and context with good detail, leaving draft_id undocumented. The description indirectly clarifies draft_id by requiring an approved draft, but it does not directly explain the parameter. Overall the description adds only modest meaning beyond 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 clearly names the action and resource: publish one approved draft to Instagram immediately. It is specific and accurate, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_post tool, so an agent must infer when each tool applies.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (approved drafts only) and a hard when-not (scheduled drafts are refused, unschedule first). It also directs users to update_draft first. It does not, however, mention alternatives like publish_post or otherwise contrast with similar tools.

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