create_post_multilang

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses deprecation status and aliasing relationship, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (creates content, publishes?) or what side effects occur. For a write-capable tool ('create post'), the lack of mutation behavior disclosure is a gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely brief (one sentence). While brevity is generally good, this is under-specification rather than conciseness — it's a single clause that conveys deprecation but omits the tool's fundamental purpose. A single effective sentence could score higher if the content was substantive, but here the sentence is thin.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, an output schema, and no annotations. For a tool that creates posts with multi-language translations, the description is deeply inadequate — it never explains the tool's function, the translation structure implications, or the relationship between this and content.publish.v1 in practical terms. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help an agent understand when/how this tool fits into a publish workflow, especially with content.publish.v1 directly available as a sibling.

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 50% — the 'translations' parameter has a helpful example showing structure, and 'status' has a default but no description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters. The schema's translations example is good, but the description itself contributes zero parameter meaning. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented status parameter or explain the translations structure.

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 'DEPRECATED alias for content.publish.v1' does convey that this is a deprecated alias pointing to content.publish.v1, which gives some purpose information via indirect reference. However, it never states what content.publish.v1 actually does — the tool's actual function (creating a post with multilanguage translations) is entirely implicit from the name and schema. The description is a tautology about deprecation rather than explaining 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 description tells the agent this is deprecated and an alias, which implies it should use content.publish.v1 instead — this is implicit guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use content.publish.v1 instead of this' nor explain when someone would ever legitimately call this tool. The deprecation note is the only usage signal, and it's not stated as an explicit recommendation with alternative naming.

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