draft_social_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it fills without publishing, and it implies a dependency on an existing read_page result. But it does not mention overwriting behavior, side effects, visibility requirements, or response/return behavior, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every word 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?

The description gives the critical prerequisite and non-publishing behavior, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, there are significant gaps: tabId semantics, return value, error conditions, and what happens to pre-existing draft content. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently in all cases.

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%, and the description only partially compensates. It explains that composerRef comes from read_page, and 'text' is implied as the post content by 'Fill a social-media composer,' but the tabId parameter is entirely unexplained, and no parameter-specific details are given. The description is not enough to fully disambiguate the three parameters.

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 states a clear action ('Fill a social-media composer') and a resource, and explicitly notes it does not publish. It implicitly distinguishes itself from publish_social_post and type_text, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives a direct prerequisite and dependency: 'Call read_page first and pass its composer ref.' This tells the agent when and how to prepare inputs. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly compare against siblings like type_text or publish_social_post, so it's clear but not fully exhaustive.

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