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

Beyond the annotation flags, the description discloses the app-visible side effect (a team-influencer plan appears on that influencer's content plan page) and instructs the agent to surface the matched identity to catch wrong matches. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations, though not every failure or side-effect case is covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and target types. The behavioral note about telling the user which identity was matched is necessary and compact.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, but it omits return-value and error behavior. With no output schema, the agent must infer what the tool returns (e.g., a created plan id), which is a noticeable gap for a creation tool.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational guidance about matched identity but does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('content plan (posting calendar)') and enumerates the target identity types: team influencer, connected profile, or company page. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_content_plans or share_content_plan.

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 states the planning context ('Posts are scheduled inside a plan') and the target selection contexts (team influencer, connected profile, company page). It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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