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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the write is a public social post visible to followers, and it must be executed through a two-step preview/confirm contract. Annotations only declare the generic write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so this social-visibility disclosure is genuinely additive. It stops short of noting rate limits, permission requirements, or what the preview contains beyond the token.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the side effect is front-loaded in the parenthetical and the workflow follows in the second sentence. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by telling the agent the first call yields a confirm_token. It also explains the user-confirmation gate. What is still absent is the shape of the preview payload and failure behavior when the token is stale or mismatched.

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%, and both parameters are already documented there, including the 'omit on first call' rule for confirm_token. The description restates the two-step contract but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('log that you're drinking one of your bottles') and immediately names the side effect ('posts to your followers' feed'). This separates it cleanly from sibling write tools like rate_bottle, set_bottle_status, or wishlist_add without opening any 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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: the first call previews only, and the token call happens only after the user agrees. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over adjacent activity tools (e.g., rate_bottle or list_my_activity), so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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