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

The description openly discloses that publishing is asynchronous, runs in the background within a few minutes, and requires polling get_article until status is published or Failed to publish. This goes well beyond the basic annotations, which only indicate the operation is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive.

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?

The description is dense yet well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before detailing eligibility, async behavior, and the website_id caveat. Every sentence adds necessary operational context, and no filler is present.

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 tool has meaningful complexity around provider selection, article eligibility, async execution, and failure handling, and the description covers all of these. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it even points to get_account and get_article for related context.

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%, but the description adds meaning around provider behavior by explaining how omission works and when eligible options are returned. It also clarifies the role of website_id in multi-website accounts, adding context beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 states the tool queues an article for publishing to connected integrations, naming specific providers like WordPress, Shopify, Webflow, and webhook. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sync_article_to_cms, which is explicitly referenced for pushing edits to a CMS, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sync_article_to_cms, including the eligibility of draft, live, generated, and failed-to-publish articles. It also explains provider-omission behavior and when to pass website_id, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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