ig_publish_photo

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

The description discloses the two-step behavioral process beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It notes that the tool requires a publicly accessible HTTPS URL, adding context about preconditions. No contradictions with annotations. The description adds value, though it could mention error handling or side effects.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and process, one for a key requirement. It is concise and front-loaded with critical information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the process and a key requirement but does not explain return values (e.g., container ID or media ID). It partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing the two-step flow, but completeness is only moderate.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the image_url requirement but adds no new meaning for other parameters (e.g., user_tags, location_id). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate for the high 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?

The description clearly states 'Publish a photo to Instagram' with a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('photo'). The name 'ig_publish_photo' distinguishes it from sibling publish tools for carousels, reels, stories, and videos, though explicit differentiation is not provided. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions a two-step process (creates container then publishes) and a requirement for a publicly accessible HTTPS URL. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like ig_publish_carousel or ig_publish_video, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied but lacks explicit context.

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