postmd_create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and performs well: it discloses that no API key is needed, that an optional key grants ownership/update ability, that groupId requires a specific permission, and that the tool returns docCode and data.shareUrl. It does not cover idempotency or public-visibility details, but for a create/publish tool this is strong behavioral context.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose, return values and how to distribute them, then optional ownership/group behavior. The most important distinction ('No API key required') is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes real value.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description names the key return fields (docCode and data.shareUrl), which is the most important missing output information. It also covers anonymous vs. API-key ownership and group permission. It could be more complete by explicitly addressing how anonymous documents behave or by routing to file-based sibling tools, but the high schema coverage fills most remaining gaps.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds a bit of context for groupId by connecting it to the default group and documents:write, but it does not add meaning for title, fileName, password, viewerStyle, or shareEndDate beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Publish Markdown as a PostMD web page,' which is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like postmd_create_document_from_file, but the required 'markdown' parameter and publish/web-page framing make the core 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 actionable context: no API key is required for anonymous publishing, while providing an API key makes the document owned and updatable later, and groupId files into a specific group with documents:write. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when to prefer the file-based create tools, so it lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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