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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible write with external effect. The description adds the useful eligibility constraint (draft status only) but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens to the post afterwards, or failure behavior for non-draft posts.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the constraint immediately after. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter action whose safety profile is covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description covers the essentials. Only minor gaps remain (post-publish state change, error behavior), which are not blocking for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents post_id fully. The description adds no format, syntax, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (publish) and resource (draft post), and the word 'draft' plus the eligibility rule distinguishes it from the generic post_publish sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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 a concrete precondition — only posts currently in draft status can be published — which tells the agent when this call will succeed. It does not mention the alternative post_publish tool or what to do for non-draft posts, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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