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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the updated_at compare-and-swap versioning model, which implies a conflict failure path. It still omits what happens on a version mismatch, what 'archive' destroys or preserves, and that idempotency_key exists for retry safety.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the operation list and CAS mechanism are both front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the operation list could be more explicitly mapped to the status enum values.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema documentation and a destructive hint, one sentence is far short of adequate. The output schema relieves the need to describe returns, but the description never explains which parameters drive which of the four named operations or how status values correspond to archive/restore/ready.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It explains expected_updated_at as a CAS version, which is helpful, but the content, media, status enum, suggested_platforms, selected_account_ids, candidate_angle, and idempotency_key parameters get no mention at all, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare property names.

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 names a specific verb set (updates, archives, restores, marks ready) against a specific resource (a draft), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_post or cancel_post, which occupy adjacent territory an agent could easily confuse.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to prefer this over update_post, nor when archiving should be done here versus cancel_post. The only implied rule is the compare-and-swap precondition, which is a constraint rather than selection guidance.

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