publish_post

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the server actively pulls media from public https URLs, local/intranet paths won't work; image cropping based on first image's aspect ratio; carousel ordering defines display order; pure text rendering (no Markdown). These are non-obvious behaviors that help avoid failed calls. A small gap: it doesn't mention what the response looks like or potential side effects (e.g., posting immediately).

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then breaks constraints into a compact list of requirements. Every sentence provides actionable information with no fluff. It's long but justified because of the numerous technical constraints; clarity is maintained.

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 publishing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers input constraints comprehensively, the behavior of media fetching, and likely failure modes (e.g., local paths won't work). It lacks explicit return-value or error-handling info, but since there's no output schema, the description carries that burden; still, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Sibling context shows it's part of an Instagram integration, so no further context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema strings: it explains that image_urls must be publicly accessible https URLs (server fetches them), 1-10 images, JPEG, size limits, dimensions, and aspect ratios; alt_texts correspond one-to-one; caption length and pure-text behavior. This compensates and elevates above baseline.

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's purpose: publish images/text to an Instagram professional account. It specifies the resource (Instagram professional account) and action (publish), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_publishing_limit, check_token, and refresh_token, which are about authorization or limits, not publishing content.

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 states when to use this tool (to publish single or carousel posts) and what constraints apply (image format, size, dimensions, aspect ratio, caption length, hashtag limits). It also implies not to use it for other Instagram operations such as fetching limits or managing tokens, which are handled by sibling tools. This is clear usage context.

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