Post a story

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

Annotations are sparse (only openWorldHint: true), so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the visibility default but omits key behaviors such as return value, error handling, expiration behavior, or authentication needs. 'Publish' implies a write operation, but no explicit side-effect disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose clearly. It is concise with no wasted words, though it may be too terse given the number of parameters. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 7 parameters, sparse annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain accountId, peer semantics, noForwards, or what happens after publishing. The sibling tool list provides some context, but the description itself is inadequate.

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 only 29% (path and period have descriptions). The description adds some context ('photo or video', 'chosen peer', visibility) but fails to explain critical parameters like peer, pinned, caption, accountId, and noForwards. Since the schema does not document these, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish'), the resource ('a story'), the type ('photo or video'), and the target ('chosen peer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_stories, delete_story, and view_story, making it obvious this is the creation tool.

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 implies you use this tool to publish a story, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The 'chosen peer' and visibility default hint at context but are not formal usage guidelines.

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