Create a post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: the default draft state and the specific grants required (content.write, plus content.publish when status is 'published'), including the conditional dependency between status and grant.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the default behavior, with the permission detail last. No wasted words.

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 13-parameter create tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the highest-stakes decision (draft vs publish) and the auth prerequisites, which is the critical context. Minor gaps remain around side effects like auto-created tags and slug derivation, but those live in the schema.

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 62% and the schema already documents status defaults, publishedAt and scheduledAt constraints. The description reinforces the status/grant relationship but adds little beyond the schema for the other 12 parameters (excerpt, authorId, categoryId, bodyFormat, seo). Baseline 3 for moderate coverage the description only partially compensates for.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Writes a new post'), which cleanly distinguishes it from update_post/delete_post siblings. The draft-default framing further pins down exactly what kind of post this produces.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: default to draft, and 'publishing is a decision the person should make' steers the agent toward draft unless told otherwise. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but the draft/publish decision guidance is explicit.

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