Publish now

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it warns the action is irreversible and hits real accounts, requires user confirmation, explains timeout behavior during multi-minute video publishing, and defines the idempotency_key retry semantics. The annotations only supply generic hints (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so this text gives real context about the effects, and the idempotent wording does not contradict the hint.

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 routing rule and the irreversibility warning come first, which is the right order, and almost every clause works for its place. The closing line about failed or partial publishes 'not being kept' is compressed to the point of being hard to parse, which slightly reduces its clarity.

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?

With no output schema and two parameters, the description carries everything an agent needs: when to call it, the confirmation prerequisite, the timeout and recovery path (postfjord_get_post), and how to retry safely. Nothing required for correct invocation or safe recovery 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?

postId is undocumented in the schema and is only implicitly defined as a post in one of the publishable states. The idempotency_key is described well in the schema, and the description adds the crucial semantics that a retry with the same key returns the first answer and never publishes twice, plus what a same-call-without-a-key counts as. That covers the gap left by 50% schema 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?

The description gives a precise verb and scope: it publishes a post in a named set of states (draft, scheduled, failed, partial) to all its channels immediately. It is unmistakable against postfjord_schedule_post, whose purpose it explicitly contrasts with.

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?

It states the selecting condition directly: use only when the person wants the post live right now; otherwise use postfjord_schedule_post with a time. It also adds a confirmation precondition and a redirect to postfjord_get_post after a timeout, leaving nothing to inference.

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