Publish draft post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses failure condition (unapproved draft), configuration exception, and return value (live post URL). It does not mention permissions or side effects beyond publishing, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with action verb and resource, then conditions and result. No wasted words; each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

Tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. Description explains purpose, success/failure conditions, and return value. It omits auth/permission details but is largely complete for a simple publish action.

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 covers 100% of parameter semantics with 'id: Draft id.' Description does not add additional parameter meaning, aligning implicitly with the draft concept. Baseline of 3 applies due to full 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?

Description uses specific verb 'publish' with resource 'draft' and target 'X via X API v2', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like approve_draft. It also states the approval precondition, adding scope precision.

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?

Description implies usage after approval by stating it fails on unapproved drafts, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it. Provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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