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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it doesn't explain what publishing does to the draft (does it immediately execute posts?), whether it can be undone or cancelled, or what openWorldHint=true implies for external side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the optional parameter last; no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is roughly adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the consequence of publishing, the default when startAt is omitted, and any follow-up call to check the result via run_status.

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 100%, so both runId and startAt are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the ISO-8601 format for startAt, adding no new semantics such as timezone handling, default behavior when omitted, or past-vs-future constraints.

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 (a previously created draft run), with the optional timing modifier. It is distinguishable from siblings like run_status, retry_post and cancel_post by acting on drafts, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'previously created draft run' implies the prerequisite that a draft must exist first, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to related tools such as run_status or cancel_post.

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