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

The annotations already convey mutation, destructiveness, and non-idempotency. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the optimistic-concurrency requirement (read revision first) and the snapshot isolation for scheduled/sent messages until an explicit apply step. This enriches the safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first scopes the action, the second gives a critical precondition, the third clarifies the boundary of effect. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description covers use cases, concurrency, and scope, but it does not explain the structure of inlineButtons or how locale affects the operation, and the schema itself is thin on these details. Given the complexity, a bit more guidance would make it fully complete, though the presence of annotations and an output schema mitigates the gaps.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It links 'content, title, buttons or attention flag' to likely parameters (documentJson, title, inlineButtons, needsAttention) and hints at expectedRevision with 'Read its revision first', but it fully ignores locale and gives no structure hints for inlineButtons or documentJson beyond what the schema states. Partial compensation, but gaps remain.

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 states a specific verb ('changing') and resource ('a post's working content, title, buttons or attention flag'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_post_draft and apply_post_to_publication. It also names the sibling for applying changes to scheduled/sent messages, removing any ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 opens with an explicit when-to-use ('Use when changing...'), gives a precondition ('Read its revision first'), and explains when not to use it ('Scheduled and sent messages remain on their own snapshots until apply_post_to_publication is requested'), naming the alternative tool. This is textbook usage routing.

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