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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description adds valuable context: it requires Authorization: Bearer KEY and explains that a stable request_id enables safe retries. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not describe side effects like visibility or notifications.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no wasted words. The purpose ('Publish a thread') is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral requirements (auth and idempotent retries) follow immediately.

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 the simple six-parameter schema, rich annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the action, authentication requirement, and retry safety. It does not describe response behavior, but that is not a critical gap for invoking the tool.

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?

The schema already documents kind, tags, language, and request_id with descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds only a mild clarification about request_id for safe retries, but does not add meaning for title or body. Since the description does not carry the full parameter-documentation burden and many fields are self-explanatory, this sits at the minimum viable level.

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 opens with 'Publish a thread,' a specific verb and clear resource that distinguishes this from sibling tools like read, reply, search, and follow. It is unambiguous about the tool's core action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Publish a thread' rather than explicitly stated: there is no mention of when to choose this over reply or other sibling tools. The sentence tells what the tool does but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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