Publish a photo post

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

Annotations only give the generic write/open-world/non-idempotent profile; the description adds real substance on top: automatic JPEG conversion and aspect-ratio fitting into 4:5 to 1.91:1, the mandatory user confirmation gate, and asynchronous background execution that must be polled with get_publish_status. It stops short of describing failure modes after the confirmation_token call or what a partial publish looks like.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the verb and scope first, the media-transformation guarantee second, the confirmation requirement and async handoff last. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 16-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs and the schema cannot convey: the human-approval gate and the asynchronous poll-with-get_publish_status workflow. It leaves the return payload shape unstated, though the wait_seconds and status-tool handoff largely imply it.

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 every one of the 16 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the fit enum, the scheduling window, and the confirmation_token protocol. The description adds only indirect meaning ('Images are converted to JPEG and fitted...' which contextualises fit/prepare) and does not touch caption, tagging, location or collaborator parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Publish (or schedule) a single-image feed post.' That phrase cleanly separates this tool from publish_reel, publish_carousel and publish_story without the agent needing to open any 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?

It states the confirmation prerequisite ('Needs the user's confirmation') and names the follow-up tool get_publish_status, plus the recovery path via reschedule or resume_publish when a scheduled time is missed. It never explicitly says 'use publish_reel for video' or 'use publish_carousel for multiple images', so routing to siblings rests on the self-descriptive names rather than on stated exclusions.

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