Ship a post

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by naming the exact mutation (wip set to false) and its semantic effect (marked complete and ready to publish), though it omits side effects typical of publishing, such as subscriber notifications.

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: mechanism first, effect second, disambiguation last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description makes clear what the call does to the post state and when to prefer it. It stops short of describing publish-time side effects (e.g. notifying subscribers) or error conditions, which would matter for a destructive-flagged 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 description coverage is 100%, with teamName and postNumber both documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Ships a post") and explains the underlying mechanism ("setting wip to false"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from esa_update_post, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition ("only when you need to ship without making other changes") and names the concrete alternative ("use esa_update_post with wip: false instead") for the excluded case. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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