Publish a trial reel

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: visibility starts with non-followers, the graduation=SS_PERFORMANCE path auto-shares to followers on good performance, MANUAL stays trial-only until done in-app, and there is no API call to graduate. The 'Needs confirmation' note surfaces the confirmation_token round-trip, which the annotations do not convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, then the parameter-altering behavior, then the sibling alternative. The trailing 'Needs confirmation' is terse but signals a required approval step without padding.

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 21-parameter publishing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what trial publishing means, how graduation changes outcome, the lack of API graduation, and the confirmation requirement, with status-checking left to the wait_seconds schema text. It does not restate the async publish/status flow in its own words, a minor omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the consequences of each graduation value and the fact that the API cannot graduate a trial reel, which affects how the agent sets that parameter. Other parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('Publish a trial reel') and immediately defines what makes a trial reel distinct: it is shown to non-followers first, letting the user test an idea without followers seeing it. This clearly separates it from publish_reel and routes A/B comparison elsewhere.

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 context (testing an idea quietly) and names the alternative for a related need ('For comparing several versions, use create_ab_test'), plus the caveat that graduation cannot be done via API. It does not explicitly contrast with publish_reel for a normal (non-trial) publish, which is the main remaining gap.

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