threads_publish_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful constraint — that publishing requires explicit environment enablement and an author approval receipt — which hints at a guardrail on the operation. However, it discloses nothing about what the call does on success, whether it mutates state, what errors can occur when approval is missing, or what the response looks like.

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 short enough, but it prioritizes a precondition over the core purpose, making it cryptic rather than concise. The single sentence reads like an enforcement rule rather than a functional explanation, and it withholds the information an agent actually needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with three required parameters, including a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, this description is grossly inadequate. The agent cannot determine the format of approval_receipt, the meaning of user_id, or the operational outcome, so the definition is incomplete on almost every axis an agent needs.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. The approval_receipt object's structure is entirely undocumented, and user_id and text are given no semantic context. With zero schema docs and zero parameter explanation, an agent cannot know what values to supply, especially for the nested approval_receipt.

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 implies a publishing action through the verb 'Publish' and the tool name references posts, but the sentence is framed as a conditional precondition ('Publish only with...') rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. An agent must infer the verb and resource from the name plus a terse condition rather than being told directly that this publishes a post to Threads.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling threads_publish_reply, which is the closest alternative and would presumably apply when targeting a reply rather than a standalone post. No exclusions, preconditions beyond the cryptic approval requirement, or context are given, so the agent cannot decide between this and the sibling.

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