send_approved_drafts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation, processes sequentially, respects a rate_seconds throttle, and defaults to dry-run. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., error handling, impact on drafts.json file) or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence ('WRITE.') immediately signals the action type, followed by a concise behavioral summary. Every element serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers the core behavior well. However, it omits details about the 'force' parameter, potential error scenarios, and the structure of drafts.json. These gaps could hinder an agent's understanding in edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'drafts_path' (file containing approved entries), 'rate_seconds' (throttle), and 'dry_run' (default behavior). However, the 'force' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its meaning unclear. Overall, the description adds significant context beyond the schema's names and types.

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 explicitly states 'WRITE. Sequentially post every entry in drafts.json where action=="approved".' This clearly identifies the action (post), resource (drafts.json entries with 'approved' action), and behavior (sequential, throttle). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'publish_post' by specifying a specific data source and filtering condition.

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 implies usage for posting approved drafts with a dry-run default, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., publish_post, post_response). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's specifics.

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