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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the blast radius is scoped to a single publication ('Other destinations stay unchanged') and prior reads are required — important for a destructive, idempotent write. It stops short of explaining failure/conflict behavior for a destructive op.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the activation condition, then the scope constraint, then the prerequisite. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers trigger, scope, and prerequisites for a two-parameter tool. The one real gap is the semantics/failure mode of expectedRevision, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it names publicationId and points the agent to 'read the post revision and publicationId first', hinting where the values come from. It never explains expectedRevision as an optimistic-concurrency guard, which is critical for a destructive tool that should fail rather than clobber a newer revision.

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 (apply) and a precise resource scope (a working post revision to ONE selected scheduled or delivered Telegram publication), and the clause 'Other destinations stay unchanged' pins down what is not touched. It is clearly distinguishable from broader siblings like update_post or update_post_draft, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when the author explicitly asks to apply a working post revision to one selected... publication') and a prerequisite ('Read the post revision and publicationId first'), which tells the agent to gather inputs before calling. It does not, however, contrast this with update_post, update_post_draft, or publish_post, so the agent gets a when but not a when-instead-of.

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