Post Drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's "Nothing is published" reinforces rather than adds to that. Its real contribution is describing what the returned artifact contains (hook line, caption, hashtags, platform-specific drafts, file names), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence that front-loads what the tool produces and closes with the key non-action ("Nothing is published"). Every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned content, and the annotations carry the safety semantics, so an agent knows what it gets back and that nothing is published. Minor gaps remain (whether drafts are generated on demand or cached, and no handling of the clipIds default beyond the schema), but overall it is complete for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 50% (clipIds is documented, projectId is not). The description only obliquely touches parameters via "a project's clips," implying projectId scoping and clip-level relevance, but adds no formats, defaults or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 for mid coverage is appropriate.

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 resource (ready-to-post text drafts for a project's clips) and enumerates the concrete outputs (hook line, caption, hashtags, X/LinkedIn drafts, file names). It is a noun phrase without a verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent sibling caption_variants, so an agent must infer the difference between draft generation and caption variants.

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?

"Nothing is published" implies this is a retrieval/draft-generation step rather than a publishing or mutating one, which gives implicit usage context. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is provided, so the agent still has to infer the routing vs siblings like caption_variants.

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