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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation; the description reinforces this with 'MUTATES Raisely data' and adds useful API-level context: POST /posts, the `{ data: {...} }` wrapping, required API fields, and the created-post return. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the mutation warning and API endpoint, then moves efficiently through required fields, linking, extra fields, and return value. Every sentence carries operational information and there is no filler.

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 create tool with no output schema, nested `fields`, and five parameters, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers endpoint, body wrapping, required API fields, profile linking, extras, and return value. The annotation also covers the destructive safety signal.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: `profileUuid` is passed through `fields`, extra fields like `date` go via `fields`, and `photoUrl` is called out as API-required even though the schema only marks path/body as required.

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 and resource: 'publishes a post (a campaign/profile update)' and identifies the API endpoint POST /posts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools such as raisely_list_posts and raisely_get_campaign.

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 makes clear that this is the create/publish path and names the API-required fields and how to link a profile through `fields`. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the create context is unambiguous among siblings.

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