ig_publish_photo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the two-step process, constraints on image URL (public, JPEG/PNG), caption limits (2200 chars, supports #hashtags and @mentions), firstComment limitations (links not clickable), and fallback env vars for accountId and accessToken. Some behaviors like error handling or rate limits are omitted, but the core traits are well covered.

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 only two sentences, both directly adding value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a critical constraint and the workflow. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: constraints, fallback, and limitations. It does not explain return values or error handling, which is acceptable without an output schema. It is fairly complete for a single-photo publishing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the public accessibility requirement for imageUrl, the support for hashtags/mentions in caption, the non-clickable links note for firstComment, and the fallback behavior for accountId and accessToken. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish a photo post to Instagram') and distinguishes it from siblings like ig_publish_carousel and ig_publish_reel by specifying the single photo scope and the two-step flow ('create media container → publish').

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 provides a critical usage requirement ('image_url must be publicly accessible') and hints at the workflow, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. However, the sibling list and the mention of 'photo' vs 'carousel'/'reel' imply when to use this tool.

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