Write title, description & hashtags

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

Annotations already mark it as idempotent but not read-only. The description adds that it saves two files and returns the text for display, which informs the agent about side effects. It does not contradict 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 textually efficient, front-loading the positioning information ('FINAL STEP'). It uses a structured bullet-like format for parameters. A slight reorganisation could improve readability slightly.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (file saving, return value) and usage constraints. The missing explanation of the 'slug' parameter is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema for title, description, and hashtags (e.g., character limits, sentence count, image credit requirements). However, the 'slug' parameter is not explained in the description, leaving a gap.

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 tool's purpose: saving publishing copy (title, description, hashtags) as the final step after rendering. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'write_content' which write the script content earlier in the pipeline.

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 explicitly indicates this is the final step after rendering, providing clear timing. It also gives constraints like language matching and content truthfulness, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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