threads_publish_long_text

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

Well beyond what the annotations declare: permission requirements (threads_content_publish, plus threads_manage_replies and reply_to_id access for replies), external platform limits (five unique links, no attachment link when the main post already links), ~30 second processing time, and explicit post-timeout recovery via threads_list_posts/threads_list_replies with a no-auto-retry rule. The non-idempotency is already in annotations but is reinforced with concrete recovery steps rather than merely repeated.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, permissions, approval gate and retry policy in a scannable order; nearly every line carries operational value. Minor redundancy in restating the link limits then adding 'Meta enforces these limits.'

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 non-idempotent, permission-gated publishing action with seven parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition covers inputs, platform limits, auth, approval gate, latency and failure recovery. Return values are not needed since an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load: it documents character bounds for text and attachment_text, that link_url must be HTTP(S) and is sent unchanged, that only plain text is supported, and the semantics of reply_to_id and the reply settings. It leaves account_id and the allowed reply_control enum values unexplained, which the schema's enum does supply for the latter but not the former.

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: publishing a short approved text preview paired with a long-text attachment, which implicitly separates it from the plain threads_publish_text and the media publishers. It never names the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for each optional behavior: omit reply_to_id for a new post, use reply_control/enable_reply_approvals only when the user requests them, and publish only after explicit approval of account, texts, link and reply target. It also names when not to use it ('Do not use this tool to test access') and what to do after an uncertain outcome.

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