prepare_for_postward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'This tool does NOT upload or authenticate — it only prepares the metadata,' which is a key non-side-effect disclosure. It also describes the returned fields needed for subsequent calls, giving the agent a clear picture of expected behavior. Minor gaps like error handling or file existence validation are not covered, but the core behavioral scope is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the workflow, then a crucial clarification of what it does not do. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the use case, the workflow, the return values, and the non-destructive nature. It could mention potential error conditions (e.g., file not found) but that's a minor omission. Overall, an agent has sufficient information to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (file_path and name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't elaborate on the name field or provide format constraints. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline of 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 clearly states the specific action (format metadata for upload), the resource (local file for Postward), and the output (path, MIME type, byte size, SHA-256). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not upload or authenticate, and it names the exact follow-up tools in the workflow. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user asks to move content into Postward for storage, review, scheduling or publishing.' It also clarifies what it does not do (upload/authenticate) and outlines the required next steps, which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' alternative, but the context is clear.

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