generate_post

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the job is async and requires polling, which is key behavioral information beyond the annotation. It does not detail side effects or what the generated post looks like, but the async disclosure is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and additional context, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex schema (nested objects, many optional params) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but misses mentioning other data sources (e.g., Linear) and content types. However, the schema is well-documented, so the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 input schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 queues an async post generation job, analyzes GitHub activity, and generates content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_post_generation_status by mentioning polling for completion.

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 tells the agent to use get_post_generation_status to poll for completion, providing clear context on the async workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches.

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