set_published

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds state semantics the annotations cannot convey: per-platform entries, that published=false unmarks, and that unmarking with a platform scopes to that platform only. It also documents the downstream workflow (the user cleans up files), which is real behavioral context.

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 primary action and its condition. Every clause carries information (state effect, multiplicity, unmark rule, handoff warning); only the parenthetical about the app display is slightly expendable.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, effect, repetition semantics, reversal, and the boundary of responsibility. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only an explicit pointer to a sibling for other status concepts is missing.

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 earns an extra point by documenting cross-parameter interaction the schema does not: the effect of combining published=false with platform ("only that one"), and the one-entry-per-platform convention for repeated calls.

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 ("Mark a session as published") plus the triggering condition ("once its video is live on social media") and the effect ("the app shows it on the session"). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby set_post_status or publish_edit siblings.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance (call after the video is live), how to call repeatedly ("One entry per platform; call again for each platform"), and an explicit when-not-to-act instruction ("do not trash them yourself"). It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the operating context is unambiguous.

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