syndicate_drafts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the adapter targets, that Substack is a read-only paste pack and 'never a write', and that a valid approval hash is required. It omits what happens on an invalidated hash, whether re-running is idempotent or overwrites existing platform drafts, and any permission model.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the fixture-adapter detail, then the hard constraint. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical adapter aside is dense enough to slow parsing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior and preconditions but leaves the platforms parameter, draft_id semantics, failure modes, and return shape undefined. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not exactly what to pass or expect back.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: only approval_token is explained (approval hash requirement). draft_id and especially platforms (an untyped array — which platform identifiers are valid, whether omission means all platforms) get no meaning from either schema or description.

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 (fan out / syndicate) and resource (approved draft → per-platform drafts) and scopes it with 'there is no publish path'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from draft_create by requiring an already-approved draft, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 clear preconditions — requires the approval token and an un-invalidated approval hash — and an explicit exclusion ('There is no publish path'), which tells an agent not to look here for publishing. It does not name which sibling to use instead when approval is missing.

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