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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not publish, that the user approves in the dashboard, that proposedTime pre-fills the scheduler, and that platforms default to all connected accounts. It could still mention permissions or whether drafts can be edited, but the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the key constraint (never published by this tool) is front-loaded after the purpose. No repetition or filler.

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?

Given three parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what the tool does, what it does not do, and the effect of optional parameters. It could be improved with notes on validation or error handling, but it is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions. The description adds some meaning about the effect of proposedTime and platforms (pre-fills scheduler, default all accounts), but it largely repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a post as a DRAFT in the user's posthell queue.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the queue and the 'never published by this tool' constraint, so an agent can tell it apart from list_posts, get_growth, or shape_post.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to save a draft for approval) and when not (it is never published by this tool). It also implies the alternative route (user approves in the dashboard), giving the agent a complete picture.

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