Create Ghost drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the cross-session upload_image constraint and the 'ordered tags preserve the primary tag' side effect. It doesn't cover duplication/idempotency risk for repeated creates or rate limits, so it sits above baseline but not high.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the format capability front-loaded and the two hard constraints (image source, no publishing) placed after. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the block-type breadth and the critical upload prerequisite. The only shortfall is silence on the many optional metadata fields an agent might otherwise guess at.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain the two content modes and the image-card src constraint (the highest-risk field). However, the many other post fields (slug, authors, excerpt, featured, SEO/OG/twitter metadata, canonical_url) are never mentioned, leaving a large gap at 0% coverage.

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 specific verb, resource, quantity bound (1–10), and two accepted input formats (Markdown or native Ghost blocks), with an enumeration of supported block kinds. It distinguishes itself from publish_posts ('cannot publish') and from create_page_drafts (posts, not pages).

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 a clear prerequisite ('Image-card src values must come from upload_image in this server session') and rules out publishing as an alternative route. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use when the goal is publishing, though 'cannot publish' strongly implies publish_posts.

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