publish_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: plain-text conversion, character-based auto-threading for Twitter/X and Threads, and HTML rendering with S3 upload for blog. It does not mention error/auth/rollback behavior, but the main platform-specific behavior is transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a scannable bullet list for platform-specific details. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 multi-platform publish tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key transformations and destinations well. The main completeness gap is the absence of any explicit note about previewing alternatives or side effects such as irreversible public posting, though these are partly covered by other dimensions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the platform-specific consequences of the platforms parameter (280/500-char thread splitting, S3 upload). The slug and title parameters remain covered by schema descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Publish Markdown content to social media and/or a static blog') and then enumerates platform-specific output behaviors, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling preview_post, but the publish-vs-preview distinction is clear from the wording.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling preview_post, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or caveats about when publishing would be inappropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the word 'publish.'

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