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

Adds real context beyond annotations: confirmed safety profile (non-destructive but mutating, open-world), drafts-by-default, credits consumed per publication, and that already-taken slots are skipped. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens when scheduling cannot find free slots.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps the English body tight. The French mirror sentence is largely a duplicate for bilingual users and slightly dilutes density, so not a 5.

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 9-parameter batch-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, the scheduling precondition, credit cost, and slot behavior — the key things an agent must know. It omits any hint of the return value (post IDs/links) or partial-failure handling.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters with clear descriptions. The description reinforces `schedule`/`confirm` coupling and the per-publication credit cost, but adds nothing about tone, count, instructions, or account_ids beyond what the schema states — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: it writes N varied publications from a brief and creates them in PurrPlan as drafts. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-post siblings (create_draft_post, update_draft_post) by making batch week-planning explicit.

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?

States when drafts happen (default) and when scheduling happens (`schedule: true` + `confirm: true`), including the slot-skipping condition. It does not name sibling alternatives such as create_draft_post for a single post, but the context for choosing scheduled vs. draft mode is fully clear.

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