ads_tg_resource_post_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: it only updates the local audit trail and never sends a message, which prevents the agent from mistaking it for a send action. It is silent on permissions, duplicate/upsert behavior for public_url, idempotency, and what the status/moderation_status values mean operationally.

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, both front-loaded with the key action and the key safety fact. Nothing is wasted and no restatement of the tool name occurs.

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 12-parameter nested write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It establishes intent and non-sending behavior but leaves the agent unable to populate the other eleven fields 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?

Twelve parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must compensate, and it does not. It mentions only the publication link implicitly (public_url) while leaving username, status, moderation_status, metadata, project_id, resource_id, telegram_message_id, posted_at, recorded_at, and notes completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Record a confirmed Telegram publication link for a cataloged group or channel.' That is far more precise than the bare tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the adjacent ads_tg_resource_upsert or ads_tg_resource_post_list tools, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'confirmed... publication link' implies this is called after a post has already happened, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion versus ads_tg_resource_upsert, and no stated prerequisite that the resource must already be cataloged besides the adjective 'cataloged'.

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