threads_resume_publication

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call can actually publish, that concurrent calls are serialized, that processing is bounded and resumable, that confirmed publications return their existing ID, and that an unknown publish outcome is permanently blocked from resending even after restart. The note that pending children may still need a parent carousel container is exactly the kind of cross-tool behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 core action and the crucial 'This can publish' warning before the constraints. Dense but every line is load-bearing; the only cost is the choppy line-broken formatting, which reads more like a caution list than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still notes the existing-ID return on confirmed publications. For a stateful, resumable publish path with approval and duplicate-send hazards, this covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, idempotency behavior, failure handling, and concurrency.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does the most important part: publication_id must be a value from threads_list_publications rather than an arbitrary Meta ID, and account_id represents the selected, approved account. It stops short of describing the 32-hex-character format constraint or the account ID format, but the semantic constraint that matters for correct invocation is covered.

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: continue (resume) the SAME previously approved content from saved container IDs. It explicitly separates itself from the publish_* siblings by emphasizing resumption of existing containers rather than creating new content, and it names the source tool (threads_list_publications) that supplies the identifier.

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 plus hard exclusions: use a publication_id from threads_list_publications and never an arbitrary Meta ID, and require approval of the original content and account first. It also tells the agent what to do when the outcome is unknown (check posts or replies manually; do not create a replacement), which is the practical alternative path.

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