set_post_hooks

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds concrete context beyond that: it replaces earlier hooks for the platform, the app lists them above the post, and picking one replaces the post's first paragraph. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the mutation semantics are clearly disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose (offer several hooks) then explains platform-specific meaning and the replace behavior in four compact sentences. Some platform detail is dense but every sentence carries useful information, with no obvious 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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the workflow context an agent needs: hooks are verbose alternatives, best first, and selecting one replaces the first paragraph. The lack of output schema is acceptable since no return values are described, though it could say more about what happens to the post immediately after setting hooks.

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 the schema already documents session, hooks, and platform in detail, including the enum values and default. The description adds the meaning of hook ordering ('best first') and the platform-specific behavior, but does not go far beyond the schema's own documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (set/offer hooks) and resource (LinkedIn or X post hooks), and explains exactly what a hook is for each platform, including the '…more' cutoff on LinkedIn and the first-tweet opening on X. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like set_hooks or set_post without opening the 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?

The description implies when to use it (while writing a post, to offer alternative openings) and mentions that new hooks replace earlier ones, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_hooks. The workflow hint about best-first ordering and picking is useful but stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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