Publish a post now

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, yet the description adds real behavior beyond them: the async job-run model, the polling contract, the eventual public visibility on success, and the alternate manual_reminder path that does not publish at all. These are meaningful operational facts an agent cannot get from the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action, each carrying distinct information: the async result, the polling step, the reminder edge case, and the visibility consequence. No filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the return artifact (job run), and how to follow it up. Permission requirements or failure modes are not addressed, which keeps it just short of complete.

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?

Only one parameter (postId) with 0% schema description coverage; the description implies it is a draft post but adds no format, ID source, or validation detail. Baseline is limited to 3 because the single required param is left essentially undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("Queue an immediate publish of a draft post") and clarifies the scope as a draft post going live immediately, which separates it from create_post/update_post and from the evergreen queue siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context for use (immediate publish of a draft) plus the follow-up procedure (poll get_job_run until succeeded or failed), and notes the manual_reminder branch that queues a reminder instead of posting. No explicit when-not-to-use, so not a 5.

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