use_post_variant

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds meaningful side effects beyond that: the previous main is moved to post history (implying recoverability) and the variant tab closes. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a mutation this is solid added 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its target, then the side effect, then the usage gate. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing clause about the app is slightly informal and could be tighter.

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 no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the action, its consequences, and the usage gate. The remaining gap is that it does not resolve its overlap with the sibling 'promote_variant' or state preconditions on the variant.

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% and each parameter carries its own description (session path/id semantics, variant id source, platform enum values), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('make a post variant the main post') and clarifies the target with '(the one that is scheduled)', so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'promote_variant', which sounds like the same operation, leaving real ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 when the user asks; the user usually does it in the app' gives an explicit usage condition and even warns against proactive invocation. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling ('promote_variant') or stating when-not beyond the user-request gate, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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