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

Annotations already signal a destructive write, and the description adds meaning beyond that: the result is a DRAFT post, and downstream lifecycle steps are not triggered. It does not fully articulate what happens to the original plan item, but it is not tautological or misleading.

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 succinct sentences carry the key facts: the transformation and the fact that downstream steps stay separate. No filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter, no-nested-object mutation, the description is mostly complete: it states the state change and boundary. Most missing context is already covered by the annotations and the schema.

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 parameters are already well described. The tool description does not materially add to the parameter meaning, particularly around the optional `social_account_id` and what happens if it is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'converts' a 'campaign plan item' into a 'DRAFT post'. It clearly distinguishes itself from publish/schedule/approval by explicitly stating those remain separate.

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 second sentence provides a clear boundary: approval, scheduling, and publishing are not part of this operation. It does not explicitly name a sibling to choose instead, but it clearly communicates when not to expect the other downstream steps.

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