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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important behavior: auto mode may replace a planned video and keep it in reserve, get_video reports placement after about 10 seconds, a paid plan and connected accounts are required, and public publishing requires explicit user approval in chat.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then details scheduling modes and constraints. It is dense and somewhat parenthetical, but most sentences carry useful information for a complex scheduling tool.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs: scheduling modes, public confirmation, prerequisites, auto-mode side effects, and where to check automatic placement afterward. No critical context is missing.

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 description adds substantial meaning to the when parameter and explains that networks may be limited to only some connected accounts. video_id is not described, but its meaning is self-evident and schema coverage is reasonably high at 67%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: posting a ready video to the project's connected accounts. It clearly distinguishes scheduling modes and separates the action from sibling tools like approve_video and get_video.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use each scheduling mode, including now, best, ISO 8601 within 60 days, and auto. It also states prerequisites, the public confirmation requirement, and that weekly-plan videos post automatically unless in Manual mode via approve_video.

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