publish_page_carousel_from_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add a useful detail: each file is uploaded unpublished and then attached to the post. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, failure behavior, or limitations such as file type or size constraints.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The sibling reference and upload workflow detail are included without fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description provides enough to understand the tool's purpose and how it differs from its sibling, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, missing parameter semantics and the absence of annotations leave gaps around prerequisites, file requirements, and mutation side effects, so it is only minimally complete for a publishing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that the carousel is built from local files and that the sibling uses public URLs. It does not explain what `page_id`, `file_paths`, or `message` should contain beyond their self-evident titles, nor does it specify path format, accepted file types, or cardinality.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Publie un carrousel Facebook') and clarifies the mode as local file upload. It also explicitly contrasts with `publish_page_carousel`, which uses public URLs, so an agent can distinguish it from the most similar sibling.

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 makes clear that this tool is for publishing carousels from local files via direct upload, as an alternative to `publish_page_carousel` which requires public URLs. It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or list exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select the right variant.

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