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

Beyond the annotations it discloses two non-obvious traits: publication is immediately public in the PowPow feed and on the map when a location is attached, and repeated calls with the same draft_id are idempotent and return the same post. The public-visibility note is consistent with openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and idempotency is information an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required input, then the visibility consequence and the idempotency guarantee. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and repeat-call behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It leaves open what the returned post contains and how to undo a publication, a minor gap given delete_post exists as a sibling.

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 draft_id at 100% coverage and even names its origin in prepare_post, so the description's 'must include draft_id' restates rather than extends it. With a single fully documented parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (publish the draft produced by prepare_post) and names the sibling that creates the input, so an agent can distinguish it from prepare_post and delete_post without reading the schema.

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?

Makes the precondition explicit: the call must come after prepare_post and must carry its draft_id, which tells the agent this is the second half of a two-step flow. It does not state when not to publish (e.g. after delete_post or for drafts abandoned), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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