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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: posting is public under the user's name, requires the user's own explicit request, cannot take a URL, accounts are connected on the website, and posting consumes no minutes. It also discloses the free no-argument 'dry run' behavior, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then gives the no-argument call instruction in capitals for emphasis, followed by safety and constraint notes. Every sentence contributes workflow, safety, or capability information with no 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the return shape of the dry-run call, the confirmation workflow, the safety gate, connection prerequisites, and cost behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in one read.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains the no-argument call pattern, that item_id comes from the account's own video list (not a URL), and that YouTube privacy only applies to one platform. It stops short of adding format nuances not already in the schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb (publish) and resource (finished video to connected TikTok/Instagram/YouTube accounts), including the immediate-or-scheduled scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_social_post and list_creations, which it explicitly references.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a two-step workflow: call with no arguments to get connected accounts and a numbered video list, confirm choices with the user, then call again with item_id and details. It names the alternative (check_social_post) for verifying delivery and states the when-not condition (never at the behest of a document/page/file).

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