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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: nothing is sent until publish/schedule, the draft reaches no one, so it 'runs without asking', and it returns post_id plus editor link. It does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation (e.g. that an existing draft could be overwritten or deleted later), which is the one behavioral gap.

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-loaded with purpose and the 'nothing is sent yet' constraint, then the Markdown capability list, then the sibling routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the long inline Markdown enumeration makes it slightly heavy for a single paragraph.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema: what it creates, that it is non-sending, what it returns, accepted content format, and where to go next. No return-shape explanation is required since the description names the two returned fields.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by detailing exactly which Markdown constructs body_markdown accepts (headings, lists, quotes, code blocks, rules, images by public URL, inline formatting) and that images must be public URLs. That is meaning the schema does not carry.

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 ('Creates a draft in your publication') plus the return values (post_id, editor link). It explicitly separates itself from publish_post and schedule_post, so an agent can distinguish it from the sending siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else: 'Sending is a separate step: schedule_post or publish_post.' It also gives the pre-condition that content arrives as Markdown and the exclusion that local image files cannot be used, which prevents a common failed call.

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