Draft a social share

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: drafts are never posted, over-limit copy is rejected, and there is no live-publish connector. This goes beyond the basic hints, though it could mention the return value or confirmation behavior.

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-loading the core purpose and immediately adding key constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers overall behavior, platform constraints, and the post-action review path. It could mention what the tool returns upon success, but the absence of output schema reduces the burden. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with descriptions for 'text' and 'asset' but not 'project' or 'platform'. The description adds character limits for 'x' (≤280) and 'linkedin' (longer) and clarifies rejection behavior, significantly enhancing understanding. The 'asset' param is explained as a gallery asset example.

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 saves a reviewable draft for social sharing and explicitly says it never posts, distinguishing it from potential publishing tools. The verb 'save' and resource 'social-share draft' are specific, and the sibling list includes 'remove_share' and 'list_shares', reinforcing differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'you write the copy, this persists it (never posts)'. It also advises when not to use it (no live-publish connector) and directs to 'Use list_shares to review', offering an alternative for review.

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