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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'publishes' aligns with those. The description adds the permission requirement ('posts:publish') and the immediacy ('anında' = instantly), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether publishing is irreversible or what happens to the post's state.

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?

One concise sentence that states the action, target, and permission requirement. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the action and permission but doesn't explain what a successful response looks like, whether the operation is reversible, or any preconditions (e.g., post must be in draft state). The annotations cover safety, but the description could add more behavioral 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'existing post' which implies the 'id' parameter refers to the post to publish, but it doesn't explicitly map 'id' to a post ID or explain the UUID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description gives minimal context but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('publishes') and resource ('existing post to the connected account'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xplanner_create_post or xplanner_update_post. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when an existing post should be published immediately. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like scheduling or draft handling. The permission requirement ('posts:publish') gives some context but no explicit exclusions.

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