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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains exactly why that surprising profile holds: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns screens, buttons and fields. It also adds genuinely useful external context (Patreon API v2 cannot create posts, checked 11 Oct 2026) that justifies the browser-based workflow. It stops short of describing the guide's return format or any prerequisites/preconditions beyond 'user's own account'.

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 definition is short and front-loaded: what it does, what it returns, what it does not do, and the next step. The closing API-v2 sentence is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by justifying why the browser flow exists.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a read-only annotation set, the description covers what an agent needs: no side effects, a documented return (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), and the required handoff to the cotlet_browser_* tools. It could be slightly more complete by naming the immediate-publish alternative, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The absence of parameters is itself consistent with a guide-returning tool, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 and resource ('Schedule post in the user's own Patreon account') and immediately clarifies the real nature of the tool: it returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action. It only implicitly differentiates from the sibling patreon_create_post (scheduling vs. immediate publishing is never stated), so it is clear but not fully disambiguated from siblings.

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 states the condition of use (scheduling in the user's own account from an AI agent) and prescribes the follow-up path: execute the returned steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Patreon Cloud Browser. It gives no explicit exclusion such as 'use patreon_create_post instead for immediate publishing', which keeps it short of a 5.

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