Promote a channel-less draft into channel-specific posts. One-way: once promoted, the content item can no longer be edited as a draft. If any post fails validation, none are created. A failure can also be reported when a post could not be fully processed after the promotion already took effect; re-fetch the content item to check its state before retrying. This API is an early preview and can change without a deprecation period.

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint) by disclosing the all-or-nothing validation rule ('if any post fails validation, none are created'), the partial-failure case where a promotion already took effect, the recommended recovery step, and that the API is an unstable early preview. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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 behavioral warnings are front-loaded and each earns its place, but the description repeats the title paragraph verbatim before adding the operational sentences, which is pure duplication. The remaining additions are compact and useful.

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 complex nested-input mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: atomicity, irreversible promotion, partial-failure recovery, confirmation requirement, and API stability. It does not describe what the response contains or how the created posts are returned, which is the remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the nested post objects. The description only adds a hint about the `fields` parameter ('use upstream fields to bound data'), which is marginal beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: promote a channel-less draft into channel-specific posts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as create_content_item_draft, create_post, and update_content_item_draft, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions and constraints: it is one-way, the item can no longer be edited as a draft afterward, and explicit confirmation is required. It also tells the agent to re-fetch the content item to check state before retrying. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer create_post over this, so it stops short of a 5.

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