postifys_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It covers async behavior, guaranteed postId return, TikTok Direct Post requirements (privacy, consent, music confirmation), LinkedIn member-profile limitation, Pinterest image-Pin-only restriction with required boardId, and account entitlement/pricing. This is thorough for a publish tool.

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 long but dense, with no fluff. It front-loads the core behavior and return contract, then layers platform caveats, workflow, and pricing. It could be better structured with bullet points, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (31 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most critical context: return polling contract, platform-specific constraints, account entitlement, and media workflow. It does not explain all parameter combinations or error scenarios, but an agent gets enough to invoke the tool correctly for most platforms.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for key parameters: boardId is required for Pinterest, privacy/consent/musicUsageConfirmed for TikTok Direct Post, and mediaUrls should use serve_url values. However, with 31 parameters, many remain unexplained (e.g., isAigc, brandContentToggle, categoryId, collaborators), leaving a significant gap.

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 opens with 'Publish asynchronously to one platform', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It also distinguishes itself from the postifys_get_post_status sibling by stating it returns a postId to poll, and from postifys_media_upload by describing the publish workflow.

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?

It provides explicit workflow guidance ('Prefer Media upload → serve_url → Publish') and warns against passing raw Drive/Dropbox URLs. It also names postifys_get_post_status for polling, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of specific alternatives.

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