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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: admin authorization is required and the tool is reserved exclusively for automated (Claude cowork) posting, both of which gate whether an agent may invoke it. What is missing is the outcome of a successful call — whether the post is immediately published, rate limits, or error behavior — so the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, each carrying a distinct piece of information: the action, the prerequisite/discovery step, and the exclusive use case. It loses a point for minor redundancy — the persona email format and the category-UUID lookup source are already documented in the schema property descriptions, so those fragments add no new information.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action, the permission requirement, the parameter-value discovery path, and the exclusive usage scope. The main gap is that it never describes the expected result of a successful call, and with no output schema there is nothing else to fill that in — but an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by prescribing the discovery workflow: use list_personas to obtain both the persona email and the category UUID before calling. This materially improves the probability of a valid invocation, justifying a 4.

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 ('작성합니다' — creates/writes), a clear resource (게시글 — post), and the defining scope: posting as a specific persona account (persona.xxx@jejusns.com). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it an auto-posting-only (자동 포스팅 전용) tool, so an agent can tell it apart from create_post without opening 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?

The description gives concrete prerequisites — 'admin 권한이 필요합니다' (admin permission required) — and an explicit discovery step: run list_personas first to obtain persona emails and category UUIDs. It also scopes usage to automated Claude cowork posting. However, it never names create_post as the alternative for manual or non-persona posting, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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