create_multi_image_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the write operation (publish) and image format constraints but does not address authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core purpose, key constraints, and image formats with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and constraints but lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward creation 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?

The description adds meaning to the `images` parameter by explaining each image can be a urn or base64 data and specifying the count range (2-20). However, it does not describe the `text` or `visibility` parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action (publish) and the resource (post with 2-20 images). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the image count range and acceptable formats (urn or base64), which differentiates it from single-image or text-only post tools.

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 when to use this tool (when publishing a post with 2-20 images) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. The context from sibling tools is present but not leveraged in the description.

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