instagram_publish_post

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

The description identifies the action as 'publish', which is a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint false. Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose the significance of the 'effect' parameter or potential side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous detail. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the high parameter count and mismatch between described 'required' fields and the schema's optionality, the description leaves the agent without a clear understanding of which parameters are needed for a successful publish. It also does not clarify the roles of 'effect', 'project_ref', 'connector_account_ref', or 'approval_ref', nor does it explain the output or failure modes, making the tool contextually incomplete.

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 marks three parameters (instagram_business_account_id, caption, image_url) as 'required', but the schema declares all parameters optional with default null, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not explain the purpose or usage of the remaining six parameters, leading to significant ambiguity in how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 one approved image post to a specific Instagram Business account. It specifies the resource (Instagram Business account) and the scope (bound to the authenticated project connector route), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'approved' indicates that this tool should only be used for content that has already been approved, which provides a usage condition. It is a specialized tool with no direct sibling among the many listed, so explicit alternatives are not necessary. The description implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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