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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating the specific state-changing actions (submit, approve, publish, retry) and noting that permissions and readiness checks apply. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and clarifies that actions like publish can be immediate or scheduled, providing useful operational detail.

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 two concise sentences: the first lists all actions, the second gives permission/readiness context. No fluff, front-loaded with the most critical information about what the tool does.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple action variants, nested objects), the description is minimal. It does not explain how to obtain the post id (path.id) or when to use each action's specific fields. However, the schema provides detailed parameter structure, and the description mentions permissions and readiness checks, making it adequate but not comprehensive for an agent unfamiliar with the workflow.

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 50% (workspaceId and idempotencyKey have descriptions; path and body do not). The description lists the allowed actions, which maps to the body.action parameter, but does not explain other parameters like path.id or the meaning of skipApproval, at, or visibility. The schema's oneOf structure is self-explanatory, but the description could compensate more for the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: performing workflow actions on a post (submit, approve, request changes, publish, retry). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the action list differentiates it from sibling CRUD tools like patch_posts_id or post_posts.

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 provides context about permissions and readiness checks ('The same permissions, review stages and readiness checks as the app apply'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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