Publish a pending container

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true gating requirement, which is not visible in the annotations or schema. It omits what happens on failure or whether the container must be re-polled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the pending-container precondition; every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context (what it consumes, the write gate). Minor gaps remain around polling/retry behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 50%: wait_seconds is fully documented in the schema, while container_id carries no schema description. The description contextualizes container_id as 'a container returned as pending' but adds no format or usage nuance beyond that, so the schema does most of the work.

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 (publish) and resource (container) and adds the crucial qualifier that it acts on a container 'returned as pending by an ig_publish_* tool', which distinguishes it from the several one-shot ig_publish_image/reel/story/carousel siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the status-check sibling it is adjacent to.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it: after an ig_publish_* tool returns a pending container, and states a hard prerequisite (IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true). No explicit when-not case or named alternative such as ig_get_container_status is given, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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