save_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the key side-effect profile (saved locally, not published) and that channels must already be connected, but says nothing about overwrite/duplicate behavior, what happens with unconnected platforms, or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the second sentence adds the essential non-publishing clarification. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the purpose/side-effect profile is adequately covered. However, with 6 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for an agent assembling a call.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: only 'platforms' is implied by 'targeting the connected channels for the given platforms.' The hook, cta, hashtags, and title fields are never mentioned, and the only required parameter (text) is not explained.

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 (save) and resource (post as a DRAFT) with an explicit scope: the local YominPost workspace, targeting connected channels for the given platforms. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_posts, check_post, and list_posts without opening a schema.

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?

Makes the usage context explicit: the result is not published and the user must review and publish it in the web UI, which tells the agent this is the pre-publish path rather than a publish action. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., a publish tool), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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