Mark a post as posted

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the specific source and target states, and the assurance that no platform call is made, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid confusing this with publishing. It omits error behavior when a post is not in platform_action_required and says nothing about reversibility or repeat-call behavior.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the state transition, the eligibility constraint, and the no-side-effect guarantee. The state transition is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gaps are the undocumented postId parameter and the absence of any statement about what happens if the post is not in the required state.

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 only 50%: externalUrl is documented in the schema but postId is bare. The description never mentions either parameter, so it adds no meaning about what postId must identify or when externalUrl should be supplied.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Record that a person has posted') and resource ('manual-reminder or TikTok-inbox post') and states the exact state transition from platform_action_required to published. The clause 'Nothing is sent to any platform' separates it from publish_post, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

'Only for posts in platform_action_required that the user has already posted themselves' gives an explicit precondition that acts as a when-to-use and implicit when-not rule. It does not name publish_post as the alternative for the platform-sending case, leaving that routing to inference.

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