Publish a photo carousel to TikTok

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the polling workflow (returns publish_id, poll get_post_status) and cross-references domain rules from post_video, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences that lead with the core purpose, then the critical post-call step (polling), and finally a cross-reference to existing rules. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is surprisingly complete: it states the action, the limit, the domain requirement, and the follow-up polling step. It omits the confirm requirement and public-moderation behavior, but those are explicitly covered in the parameter descriptions. The agent gets enough to call it correctly without ambiguity.

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 high (83%), so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as the 35-image limit (already in maxItems) and public URL requirement (already in photo_urls description). It does not compensate for the remaining uncovered parameters, but with high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a photo carousel' with a clear constraint of up to 35 images and from public URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like post_video by focusing on photos and mentions the return of a publish_id, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for using the tool: it publishes a photo carousel and instructs to poll get_post_status. It references post_video for domain-verification rules, but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like send_photos_to_drafts. This is clear enough for an agent to infer live publishing vs. drafting, but lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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