ghost_create_post

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting critical details like whether the tool requires authentication, what happens on success (e.g., returns the created post object), or any side effects. The description contradicts annotations only if present (none here), so no contradiction.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but given the tool's complexity (27 parameters), it is too brief to be genuinely helpful. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; here it does, earning a middle score.

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?

The tool has 27 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain return values, required permissions, default behaviors (e.g., default status 'draft' is only in schema), or how to handle errors. It is grossly incomplete for the agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema has 27 parameters with only 22% description coverage (6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever. For a complex tool, this is insufficient; the description should explain key parameters or usage patterns to compensate for low 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 'Creates a new post in Ghost CMS' clearly states the verb (creates) and resource (post), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghost_create_member or ghost_create_page, each targeting different resources. However, it doesn't provide additional context beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ghost_update_post for modifications or ghost_get_posts for retrieval. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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