publish_post

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world): it discloses validation failure codes (400, 409 not_editable), cross-platform partial failure becoming 422 publish_failed with per-platform results, that the post is left in a failed state, and that post.published or post.failed events fire regardless. It also tells the caller to send {} as the body, which prevents a common malformed call.

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 and target scope, then requirements and error behavior in a compact sequence. The parenthetical error codes are efficient but the telegram-style compression makes it slightly harder to parse than a fully structured description.

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?

Covers what the agent needs for a one-parameter destructive write: preconditions, per-platform requirements, failure semantics, event side effects, and request body shape, with no output schema to explain. Only the explicit alternative tool for future publishing 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 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description still adds useful semantics by specifying that the request body must be empty ({}), clarifying that the id alone identifies the post and no body fields are accepted.

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 and resource ('Publish a post now') and immediately scopes it as publishing to every target at once, the portal's Publish Now. This lets an agent separate it from sibling publish/schedule tools such as schedule_post or retry_post without opening a schema.

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 concrete preconditions and eligibility: a draft, scheduled or failed post can be published, otherwise 409 not_editable, and requirements include a caption (stories excepted), media for any Instagram target, and two or more items for a carousel. It does not explicitly name schedule_post as the alternative for future-dated publishing, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully spelled out.

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