ghost_create_post

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, or default behavior. It does not note that the status field defaults to 'draft', or that posts can be published or scheduled, nor does it explain the relationship between html and markdown inputs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is sparse given the tool's complexity, the brevity is not excessive and the sentence earns its place as a basic purpose statement.

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?

With 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly under-specified. It does not mention enums (status, visibility), defaults, or the ability to schedule posts, send newsletters, or handle markdown vs HTML. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema for correct invocation, leaving critical context about side effects and operational behavior uncovered.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning. The phrase 'blog post or newsletter draft' hints at newsletter-related parameters, but the schema already documents those (newsletter_id, email_segment). The description provides no value beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('blog post or newsletter draft') within Ghost CMS. It is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ghost_create_page or ghost_create_newsletter, which handle similar creation operations for different content types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghost_create_page or ghost_create_newsletter. There are no mentions of scenarios where this tool is preferable or should be avoided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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